SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Satish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. & anr. - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 238 of 2024
Decided on : 03-03-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. AGs with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Dy. A.G., Mr. Nikhil, Advocate vice Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocate

Compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIR and proceedings if it serves the purpose of maintaining peace and avoids abuse of legal process.

Headnote:

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 337 - Quashing of FIR - Compromise between parties to maintain cordial relations - FIR registered for traffic offenses - Compromise deed submitted, indicating no objection to quashing - Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. (Paras 1, 2, 12, 14, 16)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 173(2) - Filing of report after investigation - Cognizance taken by trial court - Importance of judicial efficiency and peace in society emphasized. (Paras 6, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 219 of 2023 for traffic offenses, claiming a compromise with the respondent to maintain cordial relations. The respondent confirmed the compromise and expressed no desire to proceed with the case.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the matter had been compromised, and allowing the petition would prevent abuse of the legal process.

Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed based on the parties' compromise.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the primary purpose of law is to maintain societal peace, and when parties have resolved their disputes, continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Result: Petition allowed; FIR and proceedings quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

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. 219 of 2023, dated 11.10.2023, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Sadar, District Hamirpur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 4, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

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

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

4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made.

5. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the reply, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

6. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

7. Respondent No. 2, who has put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court on 14.8.2024 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.

8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, as, the parties want to live in peace and harmony in future. He has also stated that 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.

9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner.

10. Heard.

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

12. The person, who has 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. He has submitted that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed.

13. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.

15. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it.

16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending adjudication before the lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top