Anmol Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

2024:HHC:11679

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.456 of 2024 Decided on : 18.11.2024 Anmol Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General and Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5.

¶7

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

¶8

Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), for quashing of FIR No.116/2020, dated 25.05.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

2024:HHC:11679

¶12

question), registered with Police Station, Boileauganj, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Sections 128 & 177 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-II, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

¶13

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

¶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 was neither rash nor negligent and in order to maintain cordial relations between the parties, the matter has been compromised between the parties.

¶16

On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by

¶17

3

¶18

2024:HHC:11679

¶19

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 has filed the reply, 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 investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case.

¶21

The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.4 and injured as respondent No.5, in the present case.

¶22

Today, respondent No.4-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that due to some misunderstanding, he has lodged the FIR, in question. According to him, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident had taken place due to the error of judgment.

¶23

Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also deposed that with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised, between them, vide compromise Annexure P-2. He has also deposed

¶24

4

¶25

2024:HHC:11679

¶26

that in view of the said compromise, he has no objection, if the petition is allowed, as prayed for.

¶27

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 he is making the statement out of his free will and without any pressure.

¶28

Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner and respondent No.5, on oath.

¶29

Heard.

¶30

In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.4, 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.

¶31

Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, by stating on oath, that in the

¶32

5

¶33

2024:HHC:11679

¶34

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.

¶35

When the parties, who admittedly are the residents of 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 process of law.

¶36

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, respondents No.4 and 5 to live peacefully in the society.

¶37

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.

¶38

Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties, as, the petitioner and respondents No.4 & 5 have compromised the matter.

¶39

6

¶40

2024:HHC:11679

¶41

Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.116/2020, dated 25.05.2020, registered with Police Station, Boileauganj, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC and Sections 128 & 177 of the MV Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶45

November 18, 2024 (Gaurav Thakur)

Anmol Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anmol Thakur 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

Ali Jan deceased through LRs Sabana and others Vs Mohd.Ramzan

Ram Prakash Vs Virender and others

NHAI Vs Devi Ram Alias Devi Chand and Others

Ram Gopal Vs Vidya Devi

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Hp

Gulam Rasul Vs the State of Hp and Others