2025:HHC:1292 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.2 of 2025 Decided on : 07.01.2025 Mohit Jain …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Aditya Chouhan, 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, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.01/2024, dated 04.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:1292 the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the petitioner and respondents No.2 & 3, who are complainant and injured, in the accident. 3. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, on 04.01.2024, the accident had taken place, in which, respondent No.3 had sustained injuries and on the statement of respondent No.2, FIR, in question, has been registered. Thereafter, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, which is now pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said accident, he was neither rash, nor negligent, but, the same had taken place, due to error of judgment. 3 2025:HHC:1292 5. According to the petitioner, the matter has now been compromised between him and respondents No.2 & 3. He has entered into compromise, on 12.11.2024, with respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, in question, against him, as well as, with injured/respondent No.3. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2. 6. 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, pending before the learned trial Court. 7. When, put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein, the circumstances, 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 and submitted the charge-sheet, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 8. The complainant, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2. The petitioner has also impleaded the injured, as respondent No.3, in this case. 4 2025:HHC:1292 9. Today, respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on the basis of his statement, FIR, in question, has been lodged and after registration of the FIR, police has conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, against the petitioner, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 10. Respondent No.2 has categorically deposed that in the said accident, petitioner was neither rash, nor negligent, but, the same had taken place, due to error of judgment. 11. Similar type of statement has also been made by respondent No.3, on oath. 12. Both respondents No.2 and 3 have deposed about the compromise, which has taken place, between them and the petitioner. The Compromise Deed is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. 13. Not only this, both respondents No.2 and 3 have also identified their signatures, over the Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2 and also shown their voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that the compromise has been 5 2025:HHC:1292 effected out of their free will, consent and without any pressure. 14. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 15. Heard. 16. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question. Respondent No.3 is the person, who had allegedly suffered the injuries, in the accident, in question. Meaning thereby, both respondents No.2 and 3 will be the star witnesses of the prosecution to depose against the petitioner, before the learned trial Court. However, respondents No.2 and 3, when appeared, before this Court and made statements, on oath, have supported the case of the petitioner by deposing that in the said accident, the petitioner was neither rash, nor negligent, but, according to them, the accident, in question, had taken place, due to error of judgment. 17. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that in the accident, in question, petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, in such 6 2025:HHC:1292 situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are very bleak. 18. When, the petitioner, as well as, respondents No.2 & 3, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, then, permitting the investigation to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties. 22. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.01/2024, dated 04.01.2024, registered 7 2025:HHC:1292 with Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 23. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge January 07, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)