IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Surender Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 304 of 2025
Decided On : 19-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, Sections 279, 337, and 338 - Quashing of FIR - Compromise between parties - The petitioner sought to quash FIR No.128/2023 based on a compromise with the complainant and the injured party, asserting that the continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process. (Paras 1, 2, 20)
(B) Compromise in Criminal Cases - The court recognized that when the complainant and the injured party have compromised, the prosecution's chances of success diminish significantly, warranting quashing of the FIR. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of rash and negligent driving resulting in injuries to the complainant. A compromise was reached between the petitioner and the complainant, who testified to its genuineness and expressed no objection to quashing the FIR.
Findings of Court:
The court found the compromise genuine and deemed the continuation of proceedings unnecessary, emphasizing the importance of maintaining societal peace.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the compromise and its implications on the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process, as the primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony.
Result: Petition allowed; FIR and proceedings quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Petitioner-Surender Kumar, 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.128/2023, dated 03.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Sadar Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Ghumarwin, District 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 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 conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is stated to be pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.
5. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the case, he has compromised the matter with respondent No.2. 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 manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter and filed final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.
8. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.2, and the person, who had received injuries, in the said accident, as respondent No.3.
9. 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. He has also submitted that since, he and respondents No.2 and 3, are residents of the same village, as such, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised.
10. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also deposed that in view of the compromise, having taken place between him, respondent No.3 and the petitioner, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for.
11. 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.
12. Similar type of statements have been made by the petitioner, as well as respondent No.3, on oath.
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 deposed that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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 petiti
A compromise between the complainant and the injured party in a criminal case can lead to quashing of the FIR, as continuing proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.
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.
A compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIR when the complainant withdraws support, indicating minimal chances of prosecution success.
A compromise between the parties can lead to quashing of FIR when the complainant exonerates the accused, indicating low chances of prosecution success.
The court emphasized that a genuine compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIRs in criminal cases, promoting societal harmony and saving judicial resources.
A compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIRs in criminal cases, especially when the complainant exonerates the accused, preventing abuse of legal process.
A valid compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIR in criminal cases, especially when key witnesses exonerate the accused.
The court emphasized that a voluntary compromise between parties in a criminal case can lead to quashing of FIRs to maintain societal harmony and prevent abuse of legal processes.
A compromise between the parties can lead to quashing of FIR when the complainant exonerates the accused, indicating weak prosecution chances.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.