The court recognized the validity of a compromise between parties that led to the quashing of criminal proceedings, affirming that continuation would abuse legal processes.

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

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.79 of 2022, dated 11.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), with Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.III, Amb, District Una, 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 to 4, in order to maintain their cordial relations.

3. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which have been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-3.

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, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, she 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 her and the petitioner. According to her, 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. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, on 11.05.2022 the accident had taken place, in which, daughter of respondents No.3 and 4 had died. Respondent No.3 and 4 have categorically deposed that in the said accident, petitioner was neither rash, nor negligent, but, the same had taken place, due to error of judgment.

9. Lastly, respondent No.2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter, in order to maintain cordial relations between them. She has also stated that she 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.

10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4.

11. Heard.

12. 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.

13. The person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Respondent No.2 has 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. She has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed.

14. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitio