Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1031

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Kuldeep Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 1315 of 2024
Decided On : 08-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma, Advocate

A compromise between parties in a criminal case can lead to quashing of FIR when there's no negligence and maintaining peace is prioritized.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 281, 125(a) - Petition for quashing FIR on grounds of compromise between parties - Compromise deed presented supports the petitioner’s claim of no negligence in accident. (Paras 1-14)

(B) Criminal Procedure - The acceptance of a compromise in injuries sustained during an accident to avoid misuse of legal process, thereby promoting societal peace and efficient judicial resource usage. (Paras 14-16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR related to a road accident, asserting a compromise with the respondents to maintain relationships. Respondents declared the accident was due to error of judgment, not negligence.

Findings of Court:
The court recognized the compromise between parties and deemed that continuing proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

Issues: Whether the parties can quash the FIR based on mutual consent and evidence of negligence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the primary goal of law is to preserve societal peace, which is achieved when parties resolve disputes amicably, and hence, proceeding would serve no useful purpose.

Result: Petition allowed and FIR, along with proceedings, quashed.

Table of Content
1. petition for quashing an fir due to compromise. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. status of investigation and statements from involved parties. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. effect of compromise on continuation of proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. quashing of fir based on compromise. (Para 17 , 18)
5. final order allowing the petition. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

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. 163 of 2024, dated 7.7.2024, registered under Sections 281 , 125 (a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS ’) with Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, 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 respondents No. 2 and 3, as they want 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, respondent No. 3 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 maintain their cordial relations. 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 respondent No. 3 and 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, and the person, who has sustained injuries in the accident in question, when, appeared before this Court, have stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. In addition to this, they have 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, they have submitted that they have 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 respondents No. 2 and 3, respondents No. 2 and 3 do not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that they have no objection, in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document