Himachal Pradesh High Court
Abdul Rehman vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 16 May, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1( 2025:HHC:14249 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.43 of 2025
Date of Decision: 16.05.2025
Abdul Rehman ...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. Vinod
Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S.
Rawat, Additional Advocates General,
with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General, for respondent
No.1/State
Respondents No.2 & 3, in person with
Mr. Vivek 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.60 of 2020,
dated 21.05.2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the FIR in question'),
registered under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), with Police Station, Paonta
Shaib, District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant
thereto, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2( 2025:HHC:14249 )
Court No.II, Paonta Shaib, District Sirmaur, 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
respondent No.2, as well as, respondent No.3, 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, respondent No.1, has 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 respondent No.1 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:14249 )
7. Today, respondent No.2, 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.3. 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.2, in unequivocal terms, has
deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, in
order to maintain cordial relations between us. 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 statements have also been made by the
petitioner and respondent No.3.
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:14249 )
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.2 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 and respondent No.2, respondent
No.2, 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.2, 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.2, would certainly amount to
abuse of the process of law.
5( 2025:HHC:14249 )
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.2 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 16, 2025
(subhash)
