A compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIR when the complainant withdraws support, indicating minimal chances of prosecution success.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.42/2023, dated 13.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to asthe FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. under Sections 379, 411 and 120B 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, Una, 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 petitioners and respondents No.2 (complainant) and 3.

3. According to the petitioners, they have been implicated in the FIR in question, on the basis of the statement, made by the complainant, wherein, they have levelled the allegations of theft against the petitioners.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that after registration of the FIR, in question, police had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

5. As per the petitioners, now, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, parties have compromised the matter. According to them, the terms and conditions have been reduced into writing vide compromise Annexure P-3.

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, pending before the learned trial Court.

6. 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.

7. The complainant, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2 and his father has been impleaded as respondent No.3, in this case, as, the vehicle, used in accident in question, was registered in his name.

8. Today i.e. on 15.05.2025, respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that due to some misunderstanding and miscommunication, he had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners and after registration of the FIR, police had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, which is pending before the learned trial Court.

8.1. Respondent No.2 has further deposed that during the pendency of the case, before the learned trial Court, with the intervention of the respectables of the society and in order to maintain future cordial relations, the matter has been compromised between him, respondent No.3 and the petitioners, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-3. He has further deposed that the vehicle, bearing No.HP20-B-9628, was registered in the name of his father, who is respondent No.3, in this case.

8.2. Not only this, respondent No.2 has also identified his signatures, over Compromise Deed, Annexure P-3 and also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioners, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure.

9. Today i.e. on 15.05.2025, similar statement of respondent No.3 and joint statement of the petitioners have also been recorded, on oath.

10. Heard.

11. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question. Meaning thereby, respondent No.2 will be the star witness of the prosecution to depose against the petitioners, before the learned trial Court. However, respondent No.2, when appeared, before this Court, has made statement, on oath and has supported the case