Madan Lal Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Cr.MMO No. 1249 of 2023 Decided on: 3^rd January, 2024 Madan Lal .......Petitioner.

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of H.P and others ...Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

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

¶7

*Whether approved for rep*	*orting?*¹
For the petitioner:	Mr. Ajeet Singh Advocate.	Saklani,
For the respondents:	Ms. Leena Guleria, Dy. respondents No.1 to 3.	A.G. for
	Mr. Jia Lal Thakur, Adv respondents No.4 and 5.	ocate for

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶9

Petitioner-Madan Lal has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’), with a prayer to quash FIR No. 129 of 2023 dated 9.6.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), registered with Police Station, Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the competent

¶10

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

¶11

2

¶12

Court of law, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that on the statement of respondent No.4 Hari Singh, FIR in question was registered, in which, the police has investigated the matter and submitted the report under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C, which is pending adjudication before competent Court of law.

¶14

As per further stand of the petitioner, the accident in question had taken place due to error of judgment and he was neither rash nor negligent. In the accident, respondents No.4 and 5 have sustained injuries. Now, the matter has been compromised between the parties, i.e., petitioner, respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 vide compromise deed Annexure P-2 by clearing the misunderstandings between them.

¶15

On the basis of compromise Annexure P-2, the petitioner has prayed that the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending against him may kindly be quashed.

¶16

When put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3-State, has filed status report, disclosing therein, that on the statement of respondent No.4 Hari Singh, the FIR in question has been

¶17

3

¶18

lodged and the police has investigated the matter and submitted the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, which is pending before the competent Court of law.

¶19

The person, who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, has been impleaded, in the present case, as respondent No.4.

¶20

Respondent No.4, Hari Singh, when appeared before this Court has not only exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, but, also stated that the matter has been compromised vide compromise Annexure P-2. According to him, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident in question had taken place due to error of judgment. The FIR, in question, was got lodged by him due to some misunderstandings, which have now been cleared.

¶21

On the basis of above facts, he has stated that the compromise has been effected out of his free will and without any pressure and he has no objection, if the petition is allowed, as prayed for.

¶22

The person, who has sustained injuries in this case, has been impleaded as respondent No.5, Ms. Arshpreet Kaur.

¶23

4

¶24

She has also not only exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, but, also stated that the matter has been compromised vide compromise Annexure P-2. According to her, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident in question had taken place due to error of judgment. On the basis of compromise, Annexure P-2, which has been effected out of her free will and without any pressure, she has also stated that she has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for.

¶25

Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

When, the person who has put the criminal machinery into motion and the person, who has sustained injuries in the accident, have deposed, on oath, by stating that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident in question had taken place due to error of judgment, then, permitting the proceedings against the petitioner to continue would be nothing, but, the abuse of process of law. The chances of success of the case of the prosecution against the petitioner are also not so bright.

¶28

5

¶29

Moreover, the acceptance of the petition will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time for the decision of some other serious matters.

¶30

Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 129 of 2023 dated 9.6.2023, under Sections 279 and 337

¶31

IPC registered with Police Station, Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, result proceedings thereto pending in the competent Court of law, are ordered to be quashed.

¶32

The compromise deed, as well as, statements of the parties, recorded today shall form part of this order.

¶33

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

January 3, 2024 ( Virender Singh ) (mamta) Judge

Madan Lal v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal 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

Deepak Kapta Vs Devkali

State Vs Ram Murti

Mohammad Zubair Vs State of Hp

Pawan Kumar Vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank

Sonu Kumar Vs State of Hp

Khem Raj Vs Ncb, Sub Zone Mandi, Hp