Karan Nandwani Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 105 of 2016, dated 7.6.2016, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal

¶19

22025:HHC:38835

¶20

Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

¶21

Brief facts, as borne out from the record are that on 7.6.2016, a telephonic information was received in Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P. that an accident had taken place near Beri, upon which, HC Jeet Ram reached at the spot. However, the injured was taken to Regional Hospital, Bilaspur. Consequently, the Police party reached the Hospital, where, complainant Raja Narsu got recorded his statement, under Section 154 Cr. P.C. that on 7.6.2016, he was going to Manali, alongwith his family members. When, he stopped to buy fruits for his family, then, a vehicle No. HR 26BY-3137, being driven by the petitioner, came in a very fast speed and hit the complainant, due to which, he sustained injuries.

¶22

32025:HHC:38835

¶23

Thereafter, on the statement of respondent No.

¶24

2, FIR in question was registered.

¶25

During investigation of the case, the matter has been compromised between the parties.

¶26

The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, and the affidavits sworn in by the petitioner and respondent No. 2, have been annexed with the petition, as Annexures P-2 and P-3.

¶27

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.

¶28

When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

¶29

It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is

¶30

42025:HHC:38835

¶31

stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

¶32

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

¶33

Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter. 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, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

¶34

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

¶35

Heard.

¶36

52025:HHC:38835

¶37

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.

¶38

The person, who has 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. In addition to this, he 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. Lastly, he has submitted that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed.

¶39

In pursuance of compromise, having been effected between the parties, petitioner and respondent No. 2 have sworn in affidavits, Annexure P-2 and P-3, respectively. In view of the compromise having been effected, between the parties, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case,

¶40

62025:HHC:38835

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

72025:HHC:38835

¶46

bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive.

¶47

Considering all these facts, the present petition

¶48

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

¶49

The statements, so recorded, and the affidavits sworn in by the petitioner, as well as, respondent No. 2, Annexures P-2 and P-3, be read as part of the judgment.

¶50

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

¶51

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶52

November 17, 2025 Kalpana

Karan Nandwani v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Nandwani 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

Deepak Minhas Vs State of Hp

Anant Ram Vs State of Hp

Sahil Rana Vs State of Hp

Birender Singh Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Aarif

Anil Sharma Vs State of Hp