A compromise between the parties can lead to quashing of FIR when the complainant exonerates the accused, indicating weak prosecution chances.

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.170/2024, dated 21.09.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, 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 to 5, who are complainant and injured, in the accident in question.

3. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, on 21.09.2024 at Rakkar Road, Sidhwari, an accident had taken place, involving his vehicle. In the said accident, respondents No.3 and 4 had sustained injuries and on the statement of respondent No.2, FIR, in question, has been registered.

4. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the case, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has now been compromised between him and respondents No.2 to 5. 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.2, 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.2. The petitioner has also impleaded the injured, as respondents No.3 and 4, in this case and has also impleaded respondent No.5, whose vehicle had collided with the petitioner’s vehicle.

8. 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 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.2 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 statements have also been made by respondents No.3 to 5, on oath.

11. Respondents No.2 to 5 have deposed about the compromise, which has taken place, between them and the petitioner. The Compromise Deed is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2.

12. Not only this, respondents No.2 to 5 have also identified their signatures, over the Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2 and also shown their voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of their free will, consent and without any pressure. They have also deposed that in view of the compromise, they have no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for.

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.2, by lodging the FIR, in question. Respondents No.3 and 4 are the persons, who had allegedly suffered the injuries, in the accident, in question and respondent No.5 is the person, whose vehicle had collided with the petitioner’s vehicle. Meaning thereby, respondents No.2 to 5 will be the star witnesses of th