IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of a compromise in a criminal case, allowing the quashing of FIR and setting aside of conviction when parties reached a genuine settlement.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

The above-titled petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as, both the petitions have been filed, in the same FIR, i.e. FIR No.43/2018, dated 19.08.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station West, Shimla, H.P.

2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the above petitions, as per the record, annexed with the petitions, may be summed up, as under:-

2.1. Complainant-Rajesh Kumar (respondent No.2 in CrMMO No.229 of 2025) had made a statement, under Section 154 of CrPC, before the Investigating Officer, disclosing therein that on 19.02.2018, he, along with his sister-Anjana Kumari (respondent No.3 in CrMMO No.229 of 2025), her daughter Raksha, Madan Kumar and Ram Dass, was on their way to Rippon Hospital, in a vehicle, bearing No.HP-35-1595, driven by him.

2.2. At about 08:23 am, when, they reached near power house at NH-205, then, vehicle No.HP93-0372 (bus, belonging to HRTC), being driven by its driver, in rash and negligent manner, hit the car, driven by the complainant, from backside. Resultantly, the car, driven by the complainant, struck against bus, bearing No.HP69-A-2036, due to which, complainant, as well as, his sister sustained injuries.

2.3. On the basis of above facts, police registered the FIR in question. After registration of the FIR, police had conducted the investigation. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Sher Singh (petitioner), for the commission of offence, punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and the same was assigned to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

2.4. On the basis of the final report, under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’), as well as, on the basis of the documents, annexed with the final report, the learned trial Court had framed the charges, under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, against accused Sher Singh (petitioner). When, charges were put to him, he had pleaded not guilty and subsequently, prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. Consequently, prosecution had examined, as many as, 13 witnesses and thereafter, the entire incriminating evidence was put to accused Sher Singh (petitioner), in the statement, recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, to which, he denied all the entire prosecution evidence.

2.5. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, as well as, learned counsel, appearing for accused Sher Singh (petitioner), had convicted the petitioner, for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, vide judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2024 and vide order of sentence dated 21.02.2024, accused Sher Singh (petitioner) was sentenced, as under:-

2.6. Learned trial Court had also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, accused Sher Singh (petitioner) had preferred Criminal Appeal No.22-S/10 of 2024, titled as ‘Sher Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh’, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’). However, the said appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 31.05.2024.

4. Dissatisfied with the said judgment, passed by the learned Appellate Court, Criminal Revision No.424 of 2024 has been f