Darshan Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr.

2025:HHC:33877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No. 946 of 2025 Decided on : 06.10.2025

Darshan Singh	…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.	…Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

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

¶7

For the petitioner	: Petitioner	in person with Mr.
	Yug Singh	al, Advocate.
For the respondents	: Mr. H.S. Zharaick,	Rawat, Mr. Mohinder Additional Advocates
	General	and Mr. Rohit
	Sharma,	Deputy Advocate
	General,	assisted by ASI
	Nishant K Baddi, H. 1.	umar, Police Station P., for respondent No.
	Responde	nt No. 2 in person
	with Mr. Advocate.	Shivansh Dhiman,

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

¶9

Petitioner–Darshan Singh has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’),

¶10

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

2 2025:HHC:33877

¶12

for quashing of FIR No. 308/2018, dated 20.12.2018, (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR in question’) registered under Sections 279, 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, with Police Station Baddi, Police District Baddi, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), on the basis of the compromise, which is stated to have taken place between the petitioner and respondent No. 2.

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that on 20.12.2018, on the statement of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered against him, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet before the learned trial Court.

¶14

It is his further case that during the pendency of those proceedings, matter has now been compromised with the intervention of the respectable members of both

¶15

3 2025:HHC:33877

¶16

the parties and on the basis of compromise, a prayer for quashing of the FIR in question has been made.

¶17

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for.

¶18

When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 20.12.2018, respondent No. 2 Salim Mohmmad was driving his four wheeler bearing registration No. HP933037, at about 3 O’clock in the night from Harrayepur to Panipat, Haryana. When he reached nearby Pik up Union Malpur, at that very moment, a vehicle No. PB29K6889 (Milk Van) came from the wrong side and hit the vehicle, due to which both the vehicles got damaged and driver of Milk Van got injured. The accident has occurred due to high speed, negligence and carelessness of the driver of Today Milk Van, going on wrong side. Thereafter, FIR in question has been registered and the criminal machinery swung into motion. On completion of the investigation, challan against the petitioner has been filed, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

¶19

4 2025:HHC:33877

¶20

Complainant has been impleaded as respondent No. 2, in this case, who has put appearance along with his Counsel. Respondent No. 2 has made a categorical statement that on 20.12.2018, accident had taken place involving the vehicle driven by him bearing No. HP933037, with vehicle No. PB29K6889, being driven by petitioner Darshan Singh and on his statement, police registered the FIR in question, against petitioner Darshan Singh. Thereafter, the police conducted the investigation and after the investigation, chargesheet has been filed, which is pending before the learned trial Court.

¶21

According to respondent No. 2, the matter has now been compromised, in terms of compromise, which bears his signatures. The said compromise is stated to have been effected between the parties out of their sweet free will and without any coercion.

¶22

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

¶23

On the basis of above facts, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that there is no previous criminal history of the petitioner, and according to

¶24

5 2025:HHC:33877

¶25

him, the accident in question seems to have taken place due to the error of judgment. As such, it has been prayed that petitioner, as well as, respondent No. 2, have taken positive steps to settle the dispute and said efforts should be recognized by the Court.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

When, the person who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, has deposed, on oath, by stating that the matter has now been settled between them, then, permitting the proceedings against the petitioner to continue would be nothing, but, the abuse of process of law. The chances of success of the case of the prosecution against the petitioner are also not so bright.

¶28

Moreover, the acceptance of the petition will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time for the decision of some other serious matters.

¶29

Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 308/2018 dated 20.12.2018, under Sections 279, 337 IPC and Section 181 of M.V. Act,

¶30

6 2025:HHC:33877

¶31

registered with Police Station, Baddi, Police District Baddi, H.P., as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.

¶32

The compromise deed, as well as, statements of the parties, recorded today shall form part of this order.

¶33

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶35

06^th October, 2025

¶36

(Pramod Kumar)

Darshan Singh v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Singh v. State of Hp and Anr.

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

Diksha Vs the State of Hp and Others

Balak Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Surinder Kumar Vs State

Prem Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Vinay Bhatia Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs Mohd. Vajid