( 2025:HHC:4965 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.16 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.03.2025 Anish Rathor …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Vivek Darhel, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.98/2024, dated 12.11.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Bangana, District Una, H.P., under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNS), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:4965 ) 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the parties. 3. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation, but, the charge sheet has not yet been filed. 4. According to the petitioner, he was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident has occurred due to error of judgment. Now, in order to maintain cordial relations the matter has been compromised between the parties. 5. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto. 6. When put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 7. Today, respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on her statement, FIR, in question, has been registered. According ( 2025:HHC:4965 ) to her, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident had taken place due to the error of judgment and she has no objection in case the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 8. Apart from this, respondent No.3 has also deposed that with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society and in order to maintain their future cordial relations, the matter has been compromised, between them, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2. She has also deposed that in view of the said compromise, she has no objection, if the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 9. In addition to this, respondents No.2 and 3 have also shown their voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that they are making the statements out of their free will and without any pressure. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations of rash and negligent ( 2025:HHC:4965 ) driving against the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing, on oath, that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, according to her, the accident had taken place due to error of judgment. The person, who has suffered injuries, in the accident, i.e. respondent No.3, has also deposed on the similar terms. 13. Once, the persons, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, and who had suffered injuries, have exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating on oath, that in the accident, in question, petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner, are not so bright. 14. The parties have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law. 15. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. Acceptance of the petition, would also give another opportunity to the petitioner, as well as, respondents No.2 & 3, to live peacefully in the society. ( 2025:HHC:4965 ) 16. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 17. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties, as, the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 & 3, have compromised the matter. 18. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.98/2024, dated 12.11.2024, registered with Police Station, Bangana, District Una, H.P., under Sections 281 & 125(a) of BNS and the proceedings resultant thereto, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge March 05, 2025 (subhash)