Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sunny Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 28 February, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
( 2025:HHC:4022 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.1303 of 2024
Decided on : 28.02.2025
Sunny Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Ms. Rinkal Khoond, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral).
PetitionerSunny Kumar, 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.186/2018, dated 23.07.2018
(hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered
with Police Station, Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur,
H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 ( 2025:HHC:4022 )
Code, (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), and Section 187
of the Motor Vehicles Act, as well as, the proceedings
resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to
as the 'trial Court').
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 complaint 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 final report,
which is stated to be pending adjudication before the
learned trial Court.
5. According to the petitioner, during the
pendency of the case, he has compromised the matter with
respondent No.2.
6. Another reason for compromise, as pleaded in
the petition, is that the petitioner was neither rash nor
3 ( 2025:HHC:4022 )
negligent, but, the accident had taken place due to error of
judgment. The Compromise Deed is Ex.PA.
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, and the manner, in which,
the police has investigated the matter and filed final report
under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is pending adjudication
before the learned trial Court.
9. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant,
as respondent No.2.
10. On 6.1.2025, respondent No.2complainant,
appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on
his statement, the FIR, in question, has been lodged
against the petitioner. He has also admitted his signatures
on the Compromise Deed Ex.PA.
4 ( 2025:HHC:4022 )
11. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also
deposed that in view of the compromise, having taken
place between him and the petitioner, he has no objection,
if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for.
12. 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 the
compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent
and without any pressure.
13. Similar type of statement has been made by the
petitioner, on oath.
14. On 6.1.2025, after perusal of the status report
one Surjeet Kaur, who had also sustained injuries in the
said accident, has also impleaded as respondent No.3, in
this case. Thereafter, notices were also issued to
respondent No.3, for today.
15. Today, respondent No.3, appeared before the
Court and deposed, on oath, that the petitioner was
neither rash nor negligent and the accident had taken
place due to error of judgment. She has also deposed that
in the said accident, she has also sustained injuries. She
5 ( 2025:HHC:4022 )
has also deposed that she has no objection, in case the
petition is allowed as prayed for.
16. Heard.
17. 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 him from
the allegations of rash and negligent driving and submitted
that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner.
18. Once, the person, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, has compromised the matter with
the petitioner and the person, who had sustained injuries,
has also exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, as
levelled against him, by deposing that he was neither rash
nor negligent, in such situation, the chances of success of
prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright.
19. When the parties, have buried all their
disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise
Ex.PA, then, permitting the proceedings to continue
6 ( 2025:HHC:4022 )
against the petitioner, would be nothing, but, abuse of
process of law.
20. 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 and 3 to live
peacefully in the society.
21. 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.
22. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the
genuineness of the compromise Ex.PA, entered into
between the parties.
23. Considering all these facts, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.186 of 2018, dated 23.07.2018,
registered with Police Station, Sadar Hamirpur, District
Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the
IPC, and Section 187 of the M.V. Act, as well as, the
7 ( 2025:HHC:4022 )
proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned
trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.
24. The compromise deed, Ex.PA, and the
statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form
part of the judgment.
25. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
February 28, 2025(ps)
