Suryaksh Vs Jagdish Sharma and Ors.

1( 2025:HHC:8842 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.15 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 Suryaksh …Petitioner Versus

¶3

Jagdish Sharma & Ors. …..Respondents Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person, with Mr. Sandeep Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Respondent No.1, in person with Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate. Respondent No.2, in person with Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocate.

¶7

Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General for respondent No.3/State. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶8

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.13 of 2024, dated 24.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto,

¶9

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

¶10

2( 2025:HHC:8842 )

¶11

pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class , Chopal, (Circuit Court at Theog), District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

¶12

Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No.1, in order to maintain their cordial relations.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

When put to notice, respondent No. 3, has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

¶16

According to the status report, filed by respondent No.3, after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the learned trial Court, upon which, cognizance has been taken and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication.

¶17

3( 2025:HHC:8842 )

¶18

Today, respondent No.1, 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 had lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties. According to him, there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, in the accident in question, as the same had taken place, due to error of judgment.

¶19

Lastly, respondent No.1, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that since the matter has been compromised between him, respondent No.2 and the petitioner, as such, 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.

¶20

Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioner and respondent No.2, on oath.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

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.

¶23

The person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this

¶24

4( 2025:HHC:8842 )

¶25

Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Respondent No.1 has exonerated the 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, as prayed for.

¶26

In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of the petitioner, as well as, respondents No.1 and 2, respondent No.1 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.

¶27

The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondents No.1 & 2, have buried their disputes by compromising the matter, then, continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No.1, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶28

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

¶29

5( 2025:HHC:8842 )

¶30

will be in a position to devote such in deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it.

¶31

When, respondent No.1, 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶35

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶36

April, 02, 2025 (subhash)

Suryaksh v. Jagdish Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryaksh v. Jagdish Sharma 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

Danveer Vs State of Hp

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp

Ghanshyam alias Sonu Vs State of Hp

Sita Ram Vs Klaita Jewelers and Another

Raj Kumar Saini and Others Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Panna Devi and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.