Allowed

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Nov 2024CRMMO/838/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of FIR under Sections 279 and 337 IPC for rash driving. The complainant deposed on oath that the matter was compromised and he exonerated the petitioner. Holding continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process, the Court quashed the FIR and resultant proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 55 of 2021 under Sections 279/337 IPC and proceedings before JMFC Mandi quashed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

( 2024:HHC:11441 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶4

Cr. MMO No. 838 of 2024

¶5

Decided on : 13.11.2024

Sanjay Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & anr.

…Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate.

¶15

For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1.

¶16

Mr. Chandresh Pal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶17

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

¶18

The petitioner has filed the present petition,

¶19

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

¶20

Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for

¶21

quashing of FIR No. 55 of 2021, dated 16.3.2021,

¶22

¶23

( 2024:HHC:11441 )

¶24

under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.(hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

¶25

Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, in order to maintain cordial relations, as they are residents of the same area.

¶26

The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2.

¶27

On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made.

¶28

¶29

( 2024:HHC:11441 )

¶30

When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed

¶31

the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

¶32

It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

¶33

Today, respondent No. 2, who, has put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between him and the petitioner. According to him, there was no negligence on part of the petitioner, in the accident in question, as the same had taken place, due to error of judgment.

¶34

¶35

( 2024:HHC:11441 )

¶36

Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal

¶37

terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, as, the parties are residents of the same area. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

¶38

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

¶39

Heard.

¶40

From the facts, as mentioned in the petition,

¶41

as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties.

¶42

The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. In addition to this, he has exonerated the petitioner from

¶43

¶44

( 2024:HHC:11441 )

¶45

the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing that he was not negligent while driving and the accident in question had taken place, due to error of judgment. Lastly, he has submitted that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed.

¶46

In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

¶47

The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶48

¶49

( 2024:HHC:11441 )

¶50

Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it.

¶51

When, respondent No. 2 has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, in that eventuality, chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive.

¶52

Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

¶53

The statements, so recorded, and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment.

¶54

¶55

( 2024:HHC:11441 )

¶56

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid

¶57

terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

¶58

also stands disposed of.

¶59

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶60

November 13, 2024 Kalpana

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

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.

Geeta Ram (deceased) through LRs Daya Krishan and others Vs Dinesh Kumar Kaushik

Ramesh Kumar Vs Kalawati

Rajesh Kumar Vs Bageshwari Devi