Tara Devi Vs State of Hp and Anr.

For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State Respondent No.2, in person with Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate.

¶11

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) for quashing of FIR No.45 of 2025, dated 09.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 281, 125(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S’) and Sections 187 & 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

¶13

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

¶14

2 2025:HHC:36879 )

¶15

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’), with Police Station, Kunihar, District Solan, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’).

¶16

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 their cordial relations.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

When put to notice, respondent No.1, has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 09.07.2025, respondent No.2, made a statement under Section 173 of BNSS to the police of Police Station Kunihar, District Solan, H.P., mentioning there that on 09.07.2025, at about 5:45 PM,

¶20

3 2025:HHC:36879 )

¶21

his grand daughter Meesha was playing on the road. At that time, one scooty, being driven by petitioner-Tara Devi, came there and the accident had taken place. Due to the said accident, grand daughter of respondent No.2, Meesha had sustained injuries.

¶22

Today, respondent No.2, who, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in the 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.

¶23

Lastly, respondent No.2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, in order to maintain their cordial relations. 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, are quashed.

¶24

4 2025:HHC:36879 )

¶25

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

¶26

Heard.

¶27

From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, 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.

¶28

The person, who had 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. Respondent No.2, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing that she was not negligent, while driving and the accident in question had taken place, due to error of judgment.

¶29

In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner, as well as, 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

¶30

5 2025:HHC:36879 )

¶31

FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

¶32

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.

¶33

Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties

¶34

to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the Court, where the charge-sheet will be filed and such Court, will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it.

¶35

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.

¶36