Allowed¶42

Aarju Thakur v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Dec 2025CRMMO/1099/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr.MMO No.1099 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Justice Virender Singh, decision 05.12.2025; quashing of FIR on compromise; Section 528 BNSS petition; FIR No.38 of 2024 under Sections 279, 337 IPC, Police Station West Shimla; rash and negligent driving; motor accident; vehicle HP11-6776; compromise deed Annexure P-2; complainant's statement on oath; error of judgment; abuse of process of law; challan submitted; Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.VI Shimla; FIR and resultant proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.38 of 2024, dated 07.03.2024, registered under Sections 279, 337 IPC with Police Station, West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., and the proceedings resultant thereto pending before the learned trial Court; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶42

Aarju Thakur Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.38 of 2024, registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, and the proceedings arising therefrom pending before the trial Court should be quashed on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3.

¶18

Court's answer

Since the parties to the lis have buried all their disputes by compromising the matter, continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR in question lodged by respondent No.2 would amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

As respondent No.2 exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, chances of success of the prosecution case against the petitioner are not bright and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive.

¶39

Key takeaways

In view of the compromise deed (Annexure P-2) and the statements recorded on oath, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as the proceedings resultant thereto pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — Petition under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of FIR No.38 of 2024, dated 07.03.2024, under Sections 279, 337 IPC (PS West Shimla, District Shimla), arising out of a motor accident in which the petitioner's vehicle hit respondents No.2 and 3; parties entered into a written compromise (Annexure P-2); respondent No.2, the complainant who set the criminal machinery in motion, deposed on oath that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent and that the accident occurred due to error of judgment, and had no objection to quashing; Held: when parties have buried their disputes by compromise, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law, and with the complainant exonerating the petitioner the chances of the prosecution case are not bright, so no useful purpose is served by keeping the proceedings alive; petition allowed, FIR and resultant proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.VI, Shimla, quashed.

¶1

¶2

( 2025:HHC:42184 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶4

Cr.MMO No.1099 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025

¶5

Aarju Thakur …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents

¶8

Coram:

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Anirudh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma & Mr. Mohinder Zharaick Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by HC. Neeraj No.232, Police Post Dhami, Police Station, West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for respondent No.1/State.

¶11

Respondents No.2 and 3 in person with Mr. Bhanu Pratap, Advocate.

¶12

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner has filed the present petition,

¶14

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) for quashing of FIR No.38 of 2024, dated 07.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

¶16

( 2025:HHC:42184 )

¶17

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

¶18

Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondents No.2 & 3, in order to maintain their cordial relations.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

When put to notice, respondent No.1-State, has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 07.03.2024, when respondent No.2 (complainant) and respondent No.3, were present at Galog (Dhami), then, at

¶22

3 ( 2025:HHC:42184 )

¶23

about 6:15 PM, a vehicle bearing registration No.HP11-6776, being driven by the petitioner came there and hit respondents No.2 and 3. Consequently, both of them had sustained injuries. Thereafter, FIR, in question, has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2 and criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of investigation, challan has been prepared and submitted in the learned trial Court.

¶24

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, she has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties. According to her, the petitioner was neither rash, nor negligent, but, the accident, in question, had taken place, due to error of judgment.

¶25

Lastly, respondent No.2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that since the matter has been compromised between the parties, as such, she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and

¶26

4 ( 2025:HHC:42184 )

¶27

the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

¶28

Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioner, as well as, respondents 3, on oath.

¶29

Heard.

¶30

From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report,

¶31

this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties.

¶32

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. She has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed.

¶33

In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner, as well as, respondents No.2 & 3, after entering into the compromises,

¶34

¶35

( 2025:HHC:42184 )

¶36

has specifically stated that she 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.

¶37

The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3, have buried all their disputes by compromising 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.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

6 ( 2025:HHC:42184 )

¶41

useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶45

stands disposed of.

¶46

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶47

December 05, 2025 (subhash)

Aarju Thakur v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarju Thakur v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Deep Ram Vs State Bank of India and Another

Reena Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sadh Ram Vs Punjab National Bank Bagipul

Bharat Kumar Vs Umesh Kumar

Gopal Krishan @ Nikadu Vs State of Hp and Ors.