IMPORTANT POINT
A compromise between the parties in a criminal case can lead to quashing of FIR when the complainant exonerates the accused, indicating minimal chances of successful prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

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.135/2021, dated 27.07.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 279 and 337 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 the complaint, made by respondent No.2 to the police, on 27.07.2021, respondent No.2 was travelling to Shimla from Mandi, along with his brother’s wife Shakuntla Devi, her son Harsh and daughter Nikita in their vehicle, which was registered in the name of his friend Prashant.

3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that at about 2/2:30, when, respondent No.2 was driving the said vehicle about 2 km ahead from Ghagas Bridge towards Shimla road, a bike rider coming from the front side came at a high speed and collided with the driver’s side front light and bonnet of the vehicle. In the said collision, Nikita, who was sitting in the car, got hurt and the bike rider also got hurt.

3.2. As per the further contents of the complaint, made by respondent No.2, thereafter, on enquiry, name of the bike rider was found to be Navin Kumar (petitioner). Subsequently, respondent No.2 took the petitioner from the spot in his car to the Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, for treatment.

4. As per the petitioner, thereafter, FIR in question has been registered. Police has conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, which is now pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

5. According to the petitioner, the matter has now been compromised between him and respondents No.2 & 3. He has entered into compromise with respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, in question, against him. 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.

9. On 04.04.2025, 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.

9.1. Respondent No.2 has categorically deposed that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and the accident in question had taken place due to error of judgment.

10. Today i.e. on 02.05.2025, similar type of statement has also been made by respondent No.3, on oath.

11. 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 and the affidavit, sworn by respondent No.3, has also been placed on record as Annexure PA.

12