Sudhanshu Mehta vs Of
2023 Latest Caselaw 19856 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sudhanshu Mehta vs Of on 27 December, 2023

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.1032 of 2023

.

                                                     Decided on           : 27.12.2023





    Sudhanshu Mehta                                                         ...Petitioner





                                              Versus




                                                   of
    State of Himachal Pradesh & Others                                    ...Respondents


    Coram                rt

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for

respondents No.1.

Mr. Sanjeev Mankotia, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

Petitioner Sudhanshu Mehta, has filed the

present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'), for quashing

of FIR No.47/2022, dated 1st May, 2022 (hereinafter

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police

Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 279,

.

and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to

as the 'IPC'), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto,

which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, District Kangra,

of H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), by way of

case No.170 of 2022, titled as State of H.P. Versus rt Sudhanshu Mehta.

2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the

basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

3. According to the petitioner, on the statement of

respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered

against him.

4. After registration of the FIR, the police has

conducted the investigation and submitted the report

under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is now pending

adjudication before the learned trial Court.

5. According to the petitioner, he, as well as,

respondents No.2 and 3 are residents of the same area and

as such, the matter has been compromised between the

parties.

.

6. Another reason for compromise, as pleaded in

the petition, is that due to some misunderstanding,

respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR, in question and

according to the petitioner, he was neither rash nor

of negligent. The compromise is stated to have entered upon

between the parties. The Compromise Deed is Annexure rt P­2.

7. 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.

8. When put to notice, respondent No.1­State has

filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, 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,

and submitted the report, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC,

which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial

Court.

9. Today, respondent No.2, who has put the

criminal machinery into motion, as well as, respondent

.

No.3, who has also sustained injuries along with

respondent No.2, are present in the Court.

10. Respondent No.2, Anu Kumari, has deposed, on

oath, that on her statement, the FIR, in question, was

of registered against the petitioner, in which, the police has

investigated the matter and submitted the report under rt Section 173(2) Cr.PC. She has also deposed that the

accident, in question, had taken place due to error of

judgment. Petitioner was neither rash nor negligent.

11. Not only this, respondent No.2 has deposed

that during the pendency of the proceedings before the

learned trial Court, the matter has been compromised

between her, petitioner and respondent No.3. The said

compromise is Annexure P­2. She has also deposed that in

view of the compromise, she does not want to proceed

further with the proceedings and has no objection, if the

petition is allowed, as prayed for.

12. In addition to this, she has also shown her

voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise

with the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, by stating

that compromise has been effected out of his free will.

.

13. The person, who also sustained injuries, in the

said accident has been impleaded, as respondent No.3, has

deposed that the accident in question, had taken place due

to error of judgment and the petitioner was neither rash

of nor negligent. Not only this, he has also reasserted the

fact that the matter has been compromised between him, rt petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2, vide compromise

deed Annexure P­2.

14. Similar type of statement has been made by the

petitioner, on oath.

15. Heard.

16. In this case, the criminal machinery was put

into motion, by respondent No.2, Anu Kumari, by lodging

the FIR, in question, in which, although, she has levelled

the allegations of rash and negligent driving against the

petitioner, however, when the said informant (respondent

No.2), appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the

petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent

driving, by deposing, on oath, that the petitioner was

neither rash nor negligent, but, according to her, the

accident had taken place due to error of judgment.

.

17. Respondent No.2, has also deposed that during

the pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial

Court, the matter has been compromised with the

petitioner and respondent No.3. She, in unequivocal

of terms, has also shown her voluntariness and willingness to

enter into the compromise with the petitioner, as well as, rt respondent No.3.

18. Respondent No.3, Narender Kumar, has also

exonerated the petitioner by stating that in the accident, in

question, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent and

the accident had taken place due to error of judgment.

19. Considering the said fact, the chances of

success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not

so bright, as complainant, as well as, respondent No.3, in

their statements recorded, on oath, before this Court, have

exonerated him from the allegations of rash and negligent

driving, by stating that the petitioner was neither rash nor

negligent and the accident had taken place due to error of

judgment.

20. Even otherwise, keeping in view the stand taken

by respondents No.2 and 3, if the proceedings, pending

.

against the petitioner before the learned trial Court, are

permitted to continue, it would be nothing, but, the abuse

of the process of law.

21. Even otherwise, the acceptance of the

of compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial

time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned trial rt Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of

some other serious matters, pending before it.

22. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the

genuineness of the compromise Annexure P­2, entered into

between the parties, as all the three i.e. petitioner,

respondents No.2 and 3 are residents of the same area.

23. Considering all these facts, the petition is

allowed and FIR No.47/2022, dated 01.05.2022, registered

with Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., under

Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, as well as, the

proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned

trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.

24. The compromise deed, Annexure P­2, and the

statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment.

.

25. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

( Virender Singh )

of Judge December 27, 2023(ps)

rt