Allowed

Rahul Khajuria v. State of Hp and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Nov 2024CRMMO/760/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and Section 185 MV Act following a voluntary compromise between the petitioner and the complainant/injured parties. The court held that permitting proceedings to continue after compromise constituted an abuse of the process of law and served the interest of peace and judicial efficiency.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 51/2023 and resultant proceedings pending before the trial court.

Rahul Khajuria Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

( 2024:HHC:11307 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No.760 of 2024 Decided on : 12.11.2024 Rajul Khajuria …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. Aman Arora, Advocate.
For the respondents	:	Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.
		Ms. Shiwani Tegta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

¶9

Petitioner-Rahul Khajuria, 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.51/2023, dated 18.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶10

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

¶11

2 ( 2024:HHC:11307 )

¶12

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jawali, District Kangra, 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

According to the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him.

¶15

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

¶16

According to the petitioner, he, as well as, respondent No.2, with the intervention of the respectables of the society and in order to maintain their future cordial relations, has compromised the matter.

¶17

Another reason for compromise, as pleaded in the petition, is that the petitioner was neither rash nor

¶18

3 ( 2024:HHC:11307 )

¶19

negligent, but, the accident had taken place due to error of judgment. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2.

¶20

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.

¶21

When put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed reply, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter and filed final report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.

¶22

The petitioner has impleaded the injured as respondents No.2 to 4, whereas, respondent No.2 is also the complainant.

¶23

Respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court on 25.09.2024, and deposed, on oath, that on his complaint, the police has registered the FIR, in question, and he had sustained injuries, in the said accident.

¶24

4 ( 2024:HHC:11307 )

¶25

In addition to this, respondent No.2 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that compromise has been effected voluntarily, without any influence from any person. He has also admitted his signatures on the Compromise Deed Annexure P-2.

¶26

Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also deposed that in view of the compromise, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 13. In pursuance of order dated 25.09.2024, passed by this Court, in this case, statements of injured respondent No.3-Asha Devi and respondent No.4-Priyanka, have been recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jawali on 4.10.2024. Respondents No.3 and 4 have also admitted the fact with regard to the compromise having taken place with the petitioner and stated that they do not want to continue with the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶27

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

¶28

Heard.

¶29

5 ( 2024:HHC:11307 )

¶30

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 submitted that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner.

¶31

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

¶32

When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioner, would be nothing, but abuse of 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 petitioner, as well as, respondents No.2 to 4 to live peacefully in the society.

¶34

6 ( 2024:HHC:11307 )

¶35

Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise,

¶36

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.

¶37

Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties.

¶38

Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.51 of 2023, dated 18.5.2023, registered with Police Station, Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and Sections 185 of M.V. Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 23. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 24. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶39

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶40

November 12, 2024 (ps)

Rahul Khajuria v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Khajuria v. State of Hp and Anr.

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

Paras Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Partap Singh Thakur Vs Baldev Singh Bhandari

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs Ramesh Chand and Others

M.C.Shimla Vs Tarlochan Singh deceased through Lrs. Laveleen Kaur

Chaman Lal and Others Vs Manbhru and Others

Ms Chanana Steel Tubes After Db Vs H.P.S.I.D.C.