Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 334 (HP)

Bansi Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-10

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. 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.35/2024, dated 07.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Sunni, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 281, 125A, 125B of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Sections 192, 192A and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who is complainant. 3. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, on 07.07.2024, the accident had taken place, in which, respondent No.3 to 6 had sustained injuries and on the statement of respondent No.2, FIR, in question, has been registered. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said accident, no major injury was suffered by any of the injured persons. 5. According to the petitioner, the matter has now been compromised between him and respondent No.2 with the intervention of the respectables of the society. He has entered into compromise, on 16.12.2024, with respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, in question, against him.The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The complainant, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2. 9. Vide order dated 05.03.2025, after perusal of the status report, filed by respondent No.1, this Court has impleaded the persons, who had sustained injuries in the accident in question, as respondents No.3 to 6, in this case. 10. 8. The complainant, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2. 9. Vide order dated 05.03.2025, after perusal of the status report, filed by respondent No.1, this Court has impleaded the persons, who had sustained injuries in the accident in question, as respondents No.3 to 6, in this case. 10. As per status report, filed by respondent No.1, after completion of investigation, challan has been presented and the case is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 11. 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 against the petitioner. 12. Respondent No.2/complainant has further deposed that in the said accident, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but the same had taken place due to error of judgment. 13. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also deposed that now, the matter has been settled with the petitioner, 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. 14. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. 15. Similar type of statement has also been made by respondents No.3 to 6, on oath. 16. Respondents No.3 to 6 have deposed that in the said accident, they all had sustained injuries, but, they don’t know as to how the accident had occurred. They have further deposed that they have no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 17. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 18. Heard. 19. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question. Respondents No.3 to 6 are the persons, who had allegedly suffered the injuries, in the accident, in question. However, when, they appeared before the Court, deposed that although, they had sustained injuries, but, don’t know as to how the accident had occurred. 20. Respondents No.3 to 6 are the persons, who had allegedly suffered the injuries, in the accident, in question. However, when, they appeared before the Court, deposed that although, they had sustained injuries, but, don’t know as to how the accident had occurred. 20. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that in the accident, in question, petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are very bleak. 21. When, the petitioner, as well as, respondents No.2 to 6, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 22. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. Acceptance of the petition would also give another opportunity to the petitioner, as well as, respondents No.2 to 6 to live peacefully in the society. 23. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 24. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 25. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.35/2024, dated 07.07.2024, registered with Police Station Sunni, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 281, 125A, 125B of the BNS and Sections 192, 192A and 196 of MV Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 26. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 27. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.