Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Date Of Decision: 07.05.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 560 HP

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 560 HP
Judgement Date : 7 May, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 07.05.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 7 May, 2025

Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
                                       1 ( 2025:HHC:13049 )


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                        SHIMLA
                        Cr.MMO No.249 of 2025
                        Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
Vijay Kumar                                   ...Petitioner

                                        Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.                                               .....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner             :        Petitioner in person with Mr. Gurdev
                                        Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondents                :    Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S.
                                        Rawat, Additional Advocates General,
                                        with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy
                                        Advocate General, for respondents
                                        No.1 & 2/State
                          Respondents No.3 & 4, in person with
                          Mr. Sunil Thakur, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

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.06 of 2024,

dated 14.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'the FIR in question'),

registered under Sections 279, 336 of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and Sections 181, 185 & 196 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act'), with

Police Station, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P., as well as, the

proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Judicial

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 ( 2025:HHC:13049 )

Magistrate First Class, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, 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.3 & 4, in order to maintain their cordial relations.

3. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been

reduced into writing, which have 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, respondents No.1 & 2, have 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 respondents No.1 & 2 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.

3 ( 2025:HHC:13049 )

7. Today, respondent No.3, who, had 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 and petitioner, as well as, respondent No.4. 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.3, in unequivocal terms, has

deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, in

order 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 the

petitioner and respondent No.4.

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.

4 ( 2025:HHC:13049 )

12. The person, who had put the criminal machinery into

motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this

Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between

the parties. Respondent No.3, has 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. He has 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, respondent No.3 as well as

respondent No.4, respondent No.3, does not want to proceed further

with the case and has specifically stated that he has 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 respondent

No.3, as well as, respondent No.4, 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.3, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.

5 ( 2025:HHC:13049 )

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, respondent No.3 has 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 deed,

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.

(Virender Singh) Judge May 07, 2025 (subhash)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter