Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Puran Chand @ Panku & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Cr.MMO No.223 of 2025
Decided On : 27-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 323, 307, 147, and 149 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought to quash FIR based on a compromise with the complainant and injured parties - Compromise was voluntary and aimed at maintaining peace in the community - Court found that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. (Paras 1, 2, 27)
(B) Compromise in Criminal Cases - The court recognized the importance of compromise in maintaining societal harmony and preventing unnecessary judicial proceedings - The willingness of the complainant and injured parties to settle was emphasized. (Paras 21, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were involved in a scuffle with the complainant and others, leading to injuries and the filing of an FIR. A compromise was reached between the parties, which was deemed genuine and voluntary. (Paras 2, 7, 21)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR and subsequent proceedings were to be quashed due to the compromise, which was in the interest of maintaining peace and saving judicial resources. (Paras 27, 24)
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR could be quashed based on the compromise between the parties. (Paras 1, 27)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when the complainant and injured parties voluntarily exonerate the accused and seek to live peacefully, the prosecution's chances of success are minimal, warranting quashing of the FIR. (Paras 22, 23)
Result: Petition allowed; FIR and proceedings quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.23/2021, dated 02.02.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in issue), registered with Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 307, 147, and 149 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 District & Sessions Judge, Family Court, District Mandi, 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 petitioners and respondent No.2, who is complainant, as well as, respondents No.3 to 6, who are injured.
3. As per the case, set up by the petitioners, on 01.02.2021, complainant, along with respondents No.3 to 6, was going from Village Pandoh to his home Nandi in vehicle bearing Registration No.HP32-A-5422, make Alto. Respondent No.4 was driving the said vehicle.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that when, they all reached near Bathli, at about 07:30 pm, petitioners No.2, 3, 6 and 11, along with other friends, were on the way and they stopped their vehicle and started beating respondents No.3 to 6, without any reason. Thereafter, in order to save themselves, Hemraj (respondent No.5) and Dinesh Kumar (respondent No.6) ran away from the spot.
5. According to the petitioners, as per the complaint, submitted by respondent No.2, due to the said scuffle, respondents No.3 to 6 had sustained injuries and subsequently, on the statement of respondent No.2, FIR, in issue, has been registered.
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that after conducting the investigation, police has submitted the charge-sheet, before the learned trial Court, against petitioners No.1 to 10 and the report qua petitioner No.11, being minor, was sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Mandi, wherein, petitioner No.11, according to the petitioners, was acquitted.
7. According to the petitioners, the matter has now been compromised between them and respondents No.2 to 6 with the intervention of the respectables of the society. They have entered into compromise, on 11.03.2025, with respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, in issue, as well as, with respondents No.3 to 6. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The complainant, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2 and the injured, in this case, have been arrayed as respondents No.3 to 6.
11. Today i.e. 27.03.2025, respondent No.2/ complainant, appeared before this Court and deposed, on oath, that on the basis of his statement, FIR, in issue, has been lodged against the petitioners.
12. Respondent No.2/complainant has further deposed that since, he, petitioners, as well as, respondents No.3 to 6 are from the same area, as such, in order to live peacefully, now, the matter has been settled with the petitioners, 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.
13. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioners, by stating that compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure.
14. Similar joint statement has also been
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 low chances of prosecution success.
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 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 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 quashing of FIR when the complainant withdraws support, indicating minimal chances of prosecution success.
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 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 compromise between parties can lead to the quashing of an FIR when the complainant exonerates the accused, indicating a lack of prosecution's success.
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.
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
