Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Bansi Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Another - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 88 of 2025
Decided On : 10-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 281, 125A, 125B - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 192, 192A, 196 - Quashing of FIR - Compromise between parties - FIR quashed based on the complainant's statement that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, and the matter was settled amicably. (Paras 1, 25)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Compromise - The court recognizes the importance of compromise in maintaining peace and harmony in society, and quashing proceedings when the complainant exonerates the accused. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash FIR No.35/2024, registered for an accident where minor injuries were sustained. A compromise was reached between the petitioner and the complainant, who stated the petitioner was not at fault. (Paras 1, 2, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court found the compromise genuine and noted that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process, allowing the parties to live peacefully. (Paras 21, 24)
Issues: The main issues were whether the FIR should be quashed based on the compromise and the complainant's exoneration of the petitioner. (Paras 20, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when the complainant exonerates the accused and a compromise is reached, the prosecution's chances of success are bleak, warranting quashing of the FIR. (Paras 20, 25)
Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. 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.35/2024, dated 07.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Sunni, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 281, 125A, 125B of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Sections 192, 192A and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any.
2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who is complainant.
3. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, on 07.07.2024, the accident had taken place, in which, respondent No.3 to 6 had sustained injuries and on the statement of respondent No.2, FIR, in question, has been registered.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said accident, no major injury was suffered by any of the injured persons.
5. According to the petitioner, the matter has now been compromised between him and respondent No.2 with the intervention of the respectables of the society. He has entered into compromise, on 16.12.2024, with respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, in question, against him.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, if any.
7. 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.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case.
8. The complainant, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2.
9. Vide order dated 05.03.2025, after perusal of the status report, filed by respondent No.1, this Court has impleaded the persons, who had sustained injuries in the accident in question, as respondents No.3 to 6, in this case.
10. As per status report, filed by respondent No.1, after completion of investigation, challan has been presented and the case is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).
11. Today, respondent No.2/complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on the basis of his statement, FIR, in question, has been lodged against the petitioner.
12. Respondent No.2/complainant has further deposed that in the said accident, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but the same had taken place due to error of judgment.
13. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also deposed that now, the matter has been settled with the petitioner, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-2. He has also deposed that in view of the compromise, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for.
14. 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 compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure.
15. Similar type of statement has also been made by respondents No.3 to 6, on oath.
16. Respondents No.3 to 6 have deposed that in the said accident, they all had sustained injuries, but, they don’t know as to how the accident had occurred. They have further deposed that they have no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for.
17. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath.
18. Heard.
19. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question. Respondents No.3 to 6 are the persons, who had allegedly suffered
The court quashed the FIR based on a compromise where the complainant exonerated the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of maintaining societal harmony.
A compromise between parties in a criminal case can lead to quashing of FIR when there's no negligence and maintaining peace is prioritized.
A compromise between the parties can lead to the quashing of an FIR when the complainant withdraws allegations, indicating that prosecution would not succeed.
Compromise between parties in vehicular offences can lead to quashing of FIR when no negligence is established, promoting societal peace and judicial efficiency.
Compromise between parties in a criminal case can lead to quashing of FIR and proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.
The court held that a genuine compromise between the parties, supported by witness testimonies, can justify quashing an FIR and related proceedings.
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.
A valid compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIR in criminal cases, especially when key witnesses exonerate the accused.
A compromise between parties can lead to the quashing of an FIR when the complainant exonerates the accused, indicating a lack of prosecution's success.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
