Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 101 (HP)

Kuldeep Singh v. State of H. P.

2025-01-08

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
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. 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 case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 15. 15. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 16. When, respondents No. 2 and 3 have exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, in that eventuality, chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. 17. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 18. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 19. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.