Vijay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person, with Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1/State. Respondents No.2 and 3 in person with Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate.

¶11

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition,

¶13

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) for quashing of FIR No.106 of 2017, dated 25.05.2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered

¶14

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

¶15

2

¶16

( 2025:HHC:41602 )

¶17

under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), registered with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto., which are pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, 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-3.

¶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 25.05.2017, respondents No.2 and 3 was going on the Motorcycle bearing No.HP12D-6163 to their village, when,

¶22

3

¶23

( 2025:HHC:41602 )

¶24

they reached near Chiknipool, on the opposite side, a Swift car bearing No.HP28A-6433, being driven by the petitioner, came there and accident had taken place. In the said accident, respondents No.2 and 3 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 has been submitted in the learned trial Court.

¶25

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. According to him, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident, in question, had taken place, due to error of judgment.

¶26

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

¶27

4

¶28

( 2025:HHC:41602 )

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Heard.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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 petitioner from 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. He has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed.

¶35

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

¶36

5

¶37

( 2025:HHC:41602 )

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

6

¶43

( 2025:HHC:41602 )

¶44

useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive.

¶45

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.

¶46

The statements, so recorded, and the compromise deed, Annexure P-3, be read as part of the judgment.

¶47

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶48

stands disposed of.

¶49

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶50

December 02, 2025 (subhash)

Vijay Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar 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

Hanuman Nath Vs State of Hp

Chaman Singh and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Lobhu Ram Vs Bhagat Ram

Gobinda Biswas Vs State of Hp

M/S Shardha Suburi Enterprise Vs M/S Samista Enterprise and Another

Hansa Devi Vs Golf Link Finance and Resorts Private Limited