A compromise between the parties in a criminal case can lead to quashing of FIR and proceedings if it serves the interest of justice and societal harmony.

JUDGMENT :

(Virender Singh, J.)

Petitioner-Jatin Sharma, 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.214 of 2024, dated 06.12.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Boileauganj, District Shimla, H.P., underSections 281 and 125(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNS ’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto.

2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

3. According to the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him.

4. After registration of the FIR, the police has started the investigation. According to the petitioner, now, he has compromised the matter with respondent No.2. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2.

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 manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, and the manner, in which, the police is investigating the matter.

7. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.2. One Abhishek Thapa, who has also sustained injuries in the said accident, has also been impleaded as respondent No.3, in the present case, on the application filed by the petitioner.

8. On 10.04.2025, respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on his statement, the FIR, in question, has been lodged against the petitioner. He has also admitted his signatures on the Compromise Deed Annexure P-2.

9. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also deposed that in view of the compromise, having been taken place between him and the petitioner, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for.

10. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure.

11. Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioner, on oath.

12. Today, injured Abhishek Thapa, respondent No.3, appeared before this Court and has also made the similar statement.

13. Heard.

14. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations of rash and negligent driving against the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, he has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving and submitted that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner.

18. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, and the person, who had sustained injuries, have compromised the matter with the petitioner, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright.

19. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioner, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law.

20. 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 and 3 to live peacefully in the society.

21. 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.

22. Moreover, this Court is sat