A valid compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIR in criminal cases, especially when key witnesses exonerate the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner 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.59/2024, dated 10.04.2024 (hereinafter referred to asthe FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, 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 petitioner and respondents No.2 & 3, who are injured and complainant, in the accident in question.

3. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, on 10.04.2024, the accident had taken place, in which, respondent No.2 had sustained injuries and on the statement of respondent No.3, FIR, in question, has been registered. Thereafter, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, which is now pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

4. According to the petitioner, in order to maintain good relation with each other, the matter has now been compromised between him and respondents No.2 & 3. He has entered into compromise, on 22.04.2024, with injured/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 circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.3, 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 has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.3. The petitioner has also impleaded the injured, as respondent No.2, in this case.

8. Today, respondent No.3-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on the basis of his statement, FIR, in question, has been lodged and after registration of the FIR, police has conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, against the petitioner, which is pending before the learned trial Court.

9. Respondent No.3 has categorically deposed that in the said accident, petitioner was neither rash, nor negligent, but, the same had taken place, due to error of judgment.

10. Similar type of statement has also been made by respondent No.2, on oath.

11. Both respondents No.2 and 3 have deposed about the compromise, which has taken place, between respondent No.2 and the petitioner. The Compromise Deed is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2.

12. Not only this, respondent No.2 has also identified his signatures, over the Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2 and 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.

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

14. Heard.

15. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.3, by lodging the FIR, in question. Respondent No.2 is the person, who had allegedly suffered the injuries, in the accident, in question. Meaning thereby, both respondents No.2 and 3 will be the star witnesses of the prosecution to depose against the petitioner, before the learned trial Court. However, respondents No.2 and 3, when appeared, before this Court, have made statement