Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

( 2024:HHC:10883 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.1038 of 2024 Decided on : 07.11.2024 Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner	:	Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents	:	Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for
		respondents No.1 to 3.
		Mr. Prashant Chauhan,
		Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

¶9

Petitioner-Rakesh 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.14/2015, dated 01.02.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Talai, District Bilaspur, H.P., under 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶10

2 (2024:HHC:10883)

¶11

Sections 336, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

¶12

The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

¶13

According to the petitioner, due to some misunderstanding, respondent No.4 had lodged the FIR, in question, against him.

¶14

After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.

¶15

According to the petitioner, he, as well as, respondent No.4 are residents of the same area and as such, in order to maintain their future cordial relations, the matter has been compromised between the parties.

¶16

3

¶17

(2024:HHC:10883)

¶18

Another reason for compromise, as pleaded in the petition, is that the parties do not want any sort of bitterness or enmity to continue between them, as such, they have compromised the matter.

¶19

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.

¶20

When put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3- State have filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.4, as well as, the manner, in which, the police has conducted the investigation, in this case and submitted the final report, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

¶21

The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No. 4.

¶22

Today, respondent No.4-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that due to some misunderstanding, he had lodged the FIR, in question.

¶23

4 (2024:HHC:10883)

¶24

According to him, there is no role attributed to the petitioner and the accident had taken place due to the error of judgment.

¶25

Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also deposed that since, he and the petitioner are residents of the same area, as such, in order to maintain their future cordial relations, the matter has been compromised, between them. He has also deposed that in view of the compromise, he has no objection, if the petition is allowed, as prayed for.

¶26

In addition to this, respondent No.4 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that in order to maintain their cordial relations, the matter has been compromised.

¶27

Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioner, on oath.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.4, by lodging the FIR, in question, however, when appeared before this Court, he

¶30

5

¶31

(2024:HHC:10883)

¶32

has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by deposing, on oath, that the accident had taken place due to error of judgment.

¶33

Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright.

¶34

When the parties, who admittedly are residents of the same area, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law.

¶35

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, respondent No.4 to live peacefully in the society.

¶36

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

¶37

6

¶38

(2024:HHC:10883)

¶39

a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it.

¶40

Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, entered into between the parties, as, the petitioner and respondent No.4, are residents of the same area.

¶41

Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.14/2015, dated 01.02.2015, registered with Police Station, Talai, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 336, 337 & 338 of the IPC and Section 181 of the MV Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.

¶42

The compromise deed, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶44

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶45

November 07, 2024 (ps)

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Singh Verma Vs Chander Shekhar Sood

Ravinder Singh Verma Vs Chander Kant Sood

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Devender Habbi and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Dc Chandel

Nitika Prashar and others Vs State of Hp and others