Himachal Pradesh High Court
Akshay Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Another on 21 November, 2024
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
( 2024:HHC:12356 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMMO No.793 of 2024
Decided on : 21.11.2024
Akshay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Another ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Vivek Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Tejasvi
Sharma, Additional Advocates
General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
__________________________________________________________
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)
Petitioner - Akshay Kumar has filed the present
petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
B.N.S.S.'), for quashing FIR No.177 of 2020, dated 26.10.2020,
registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 ( 2024:HHC:12356 )
Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and Section 181 of
the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'MV
Act'), with Police Station Hatali, District Mandi, H.P., as well
as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court
of learned ACJM, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.
2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the
basis of the compromise, effected between the parties.
3. According to the petitioner, the alleged
accident/incident had occurred due to error of judgment,
while driving the vehicle.
4. According to the petitioner, he has entered into
compromise with respondent No.2, who has lodged the
FIR, in question, against him. The Compromise Deed is
Annexure P-3.
5. 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.
6. 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
3 ( 2024:HHC:12356 )
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.
7. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant,
as respondent No.2.
8. On 28.08.2024, respondent No.2-complainant,
appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that he
had reported the matter to the police and on the basis of
his complaint, FIR, in question, was registered, against the
petitioner.
9. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also
deposed that the matter has been compromised, between
them, vide compromise Annexure P-3. He has also deposed
that since, they have decided to arrive at settlement, as
such, he has no objection, in case, the present petition is
allowed, as prayed for.
10. 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 he has
entered into the compromise with the petitioner
voluntarily, without any influence.
4 ( 2024:HHC:12356 )
11. Today, similar type of statement has been made
by the petitioner, on oath.
12. Heard.
13. In this case, the criminal machinery was put
into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in
question, who initially had levelled the allegations of rash
and negligent driving against the petitioner, however,
when, appeared before this Court, he has exonerated the
petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent
driving, by deposing, on oath, that he has entered into the
compromise with the petitioner.
14. Once, the person, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from
the allegations, by compromising the matter, in such
situation, the chances of success of prosecution case,
against the petitioner, are not so bright.
15. When the parties have buried all their disputes,
by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure
P-3, then, permitting the investigation to continue, would
be nothing, but abuse of the process of law.
5 ( 2024:HHC:12356 )
16. 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 parties to live
peacefully in the society.
17. 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.
18. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the
genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-3, entered
into between the parties, as, the petitioner and respondent
No.2, have burried their disputes and compromised the
matter.
19. Considering all these facts, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.177 of 2020, dated 26.10.2020, registered
under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Section 181 of
the MV Act, with Police Station Hatali, District Mandi, H.P.,
as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending
before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.
6 ( 2024:HHC:12356 )
20. The compromise deed, Annexure P-3, and the
statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment.
21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
November 21, 2024
( ps )
