Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Jaswinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Another - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 104 of 2025
Decided On : 06-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Arsh Chauhan, Ashwani Kaundal
For the Respondents: Tejasvi Sharma, Mamta Thakur, Rajesh Kumar

Compromise between parties in a criminal case can lead to quashing of FIR and proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.

Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Section 279 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 196 - Quashing of FIR - Compromise between parties to maintain cordial relations - Respondent exonerated petitioner from allegations of negligence - Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. (Paras 1, 12, 14, 17)

(B) Compromise in criminal cases - When parties have settled their disputes amicably, the court may quash FIR and proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process. (Paras 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 80 of 2019 under IPC and M.V. Act, claiming a compromise with the respondent to maintain cordial relations. The respondent stated there was no negligence on the petitioner’s part. (Paras 1, 2, 8)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the matter had been compromised, and the continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose. (Paras 11, 17)

Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR and proceedings should be quashed based on the compromise between the parties. (Paras 1, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that acceptance of the compromise would prevent abuse of the legal process and promote peace between the parties. (Paras 14, 16)

Result: Petition allowed; FIR and proceedings quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. 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. 80 of 2019, dated 11.8.2019, under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), registered with Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, 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 their 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 status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

6. It is the further 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. Today, respondent No. 2, who, has put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in 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 cordial relations, between him, and the petitioner. According to him, there was no negligence on part of the petitioner, in the accident in question, as the same had taken place, due to error of judgment.

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 status report, 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. In addition to this, he 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. Lastly, 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 respondents No. 2 and 3, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document