Compromise between parties in a criminal case can lead to quashing of FIR and proceedings if it serves the interest of justice and maintains societal peace.

JUDGMENT :

(Virender Singh, J.)

Cr.MP No.1304 of 2025

By way of the present application, a prayer has been made to implead Manisha Sharma, as respondent No.3, who had sustained injuries in the accident in question.

2. State has filed the status report. Perusal of the status report would show that one Manisha Sharma had also sustained injuries in the accident, and for adjudication of the case, she is also necessary party. As such, she is required to be impleaded as party respondent, by exercising the powers under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023. Hence, said Manisha Sharma, is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.3, in this case.

3. Application stands disposed of.

4. Amended memo of parties annexed with the application, be taken on record.

Cr.MMO No.207 of 2025

5. Respondent No.3 is present alongwith her counsel Mr. Dikken Kumar Verma, Advocate. Let her statement be recorded.

6. The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) for quashing of FIR No.47 of 2023, dated 09.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code , (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC ’), registered with Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto.

7. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3, in order to maintain their cordial relations.

8. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which have been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2.

9. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made.

10. When put to notice, respondent No.1/State has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2 and criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of investigation, challan has been prepared and has been submitted in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Shimla, H.P.

11. Respondent No.2., who, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in the Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain their cordial relations. According to him, there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, in the accident in question, as the same had taken place, due to error of judgment.

12. Lastly, respondent No.2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that since the matter has been compromised between the parties, as such, he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

13. Similar type of statements have also been made by petitioner, as well as respondents No.2 and 3.

14. Heard.

15. From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties.

16. The person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Respondent No.2 has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing that he was not negligent, while driving and the accident in question had taken place, due to error of judgment. He has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed.

17. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2, respondent No.2 after entering into the compromise, has