Quashed

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Nov 2024CRMMO/352/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed an FIR for rash and negligent driving and pending proceedings after the complainant testified to a voluntary compromise, stating the accident was due to error of judgment rather than negligence, and that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.56/2021 and proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra are quashed.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:10724

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No.352 of 2024 Decided on : 06.11.2024 Dinesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶7

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

¶8

Petitioner, has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), for quashing of FIR No.56/2021, dated 16.04.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Dehra, District

¶9

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶10

2 2024:HHC:10724

¶11

Kangra, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Sections 181, 185 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, 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, the alleged accident/incident had occurred due to error of judgment and unavoidable circumstances, while driving the vehicle. 4. According to the petitioner, he has entered into compromise on 10.04.2024 with respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, in question, against him. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2.

¶14

On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the, as prayed for, by quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court.

¶15

3 2024:HHC:10724

¶16

When put to notice, respondent No.1-State has

¶17

filed the reply, mentioning therein the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case.

¶18

The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.2.

¶19

On 10.05.2024, respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on the basis of his complaint, FIR, in question, was registered, against Dinesh Kumar (petitioner herein).

¶20

Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also deposed that the matter has been compromised, between them, vide compromise Annexure P-2, in view of the fact that the alleged incident was not on account of negligence of the petitioner, but, the incident had occurred due to error of judgment. He has also deposed that since, they have decided to arrive at settlement, as such, he has no objection, if the petition is allowed, as prayed for.

¶21

In addition to this, respondent No.2 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the

¶22

4 2024:HHC:10724

¶23

compromise with the petitioner, by stating that

¶24

compromise has been effected, without any coercion, duress or pressure from any person, whatsoever.

¶25

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

¶26

The injured has also appeared, before the Court, in pursuance of the order dated 20.06.2024, and has stated, on oath, that he has not sustained much injuries in the accident and has now voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

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 the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing, on oath, that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, according to him, the accident had taken place due to error of judgment.

¶29

Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from

¶30

5 2024:HHC:10724

¶31

the allegations, by stating on oath, that in the accident, in question, petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright.

¶32

When the parties, who admittedly are residents of the same area, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P-2, then, permitting the investigation to continue, would be nothing, but abuse of the process of law.

¶33

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 parties to live peacefully in the society.

¶34

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.

¶35

Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties, as, the petitioner and respondent No.2, are residents of the same area.

¶36

¶37

2024:HHC:10724

¶38

Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.56/2021, dated 16.04.2021, registered with Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Sections 181, 185 of the MV Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.

¶39

The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment.

¶40

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

¶41

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶42

November 06, 2024

¶43

(Gaurav Thakur)

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Lata Vs Bhima Devi

State of Hp and Another Vs Raksha Devi and another

Shashi Kant Vs State of Hp

Ravinder Singh Verma Vs Chander Shekhar Sood

Ravinder Singh Verma Vs Chander Kant Sood

Kadar Ali Vs State of Hp