AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The petitioner seeks to quash FIR No. 05 of 2025, registered for offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Motor Vehicles Act at Police Station Haroli. A compromise between the parties has been asserted, with the victim and informant stating they have resolved the matter amicably. The petitioner, a young professional, claims that ongoing proceedings could negatively impact his career.
Law Points
['Whether the FIR can be quashed due to the compromise between the parties.', 'The applicability of the existing precedents regarding similar offenses.']
Acts & Articles
['Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023', 'Motor Vehicles Act']
Judgments Referred
['Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HHC 531', 'Vikas Huda vs State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009', 'Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR384', 'Nishant vs State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45', 'Ashish Kumar vs State of H.P. & another: 2024 HHC 16368', 'Rajender Thakur vs State of H.P. 2022 STPL 10700 HP', 'Harish Sharma vs State of H.P., 2022 STPL 10696 HP', 'Suresh Kumar vs State of H.P., 2019 STPL 1580 HP', 'Suresh Kumar vs State of H.P, 2019 STPL 4144 HP']
Obiter Dicta
The court observed that the continuation of the case based on a compromise would not serve the interest of justice. It emphasized the importance of resolving personal disputes amicably when feasible.
Ratio Decidendi
The court established that FIRs related to offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Motor Vehicles Act can be quashed if the parties involved reach a genuine compromise. This principle is supported by binding precedents.
Final Ruling
The petition was allowed, resulting in the quashing of FIR No. 05 of 2025 and the proceedings arising from it. The court confirmed its stance based on precedents that supported quashing in similar scenarios.
Plain-Language Gist
The dispute involved a request to quash a FIR arising from a personal offense after a compromise was reached. The court ultimately approved the quashing of the FIR, affirming the principle that compromises in similar cases warrant dismissal of proceedings.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
Rakesh Kainthla, J
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 05 of 2025, dated 07.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a) & 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V.Act) at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. and consequential proceeding arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise effected between the parties.
It has been asserted that the parties have entered into compromise on the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. The petitioner is a young person, who is pursuing his job and has a bright future ahead of him. The continuation of the proceedings would adversely affect the petitioner's career. Hence, the present petition.
Statement of informant/victim-Rajneesh Kumar and injured-Mohinder Singh were recorded on 06.03.2026, in which they stated that they had compromised the matter with petitioner/accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and had no objection in case F.I.R as well as proceedings arising out of the same are ordered to be quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.
In the present case, the F.I.R. was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 125(a), 125(b) and 281 of BNS which correspond to Sections 337, 338 and 279 of IPC, respectively. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of aforesaid offences in Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HHC 531, Vikas Huda vs State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45, Ashish Kumar vs. State of H.P. & another:2024:HHC16368 based on compromise.
It was submitted on behalf of the State that the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be quashed because of the compromise. This submission is not acceptable because this Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act in Rajender Thakur versus State of H.P. 2022 STPL 10700 HP, Harish Sharma versus State of H.P., 2022 STPL 10696 HP, Suresh Kumar versus State of H.P., 2019 STPL 1580 HP and Suresh Kumar versus State of H.P, 2019 STPL 4144 HP, based on compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and F.I.R. No. 05 of 2025, dated 07.01.2025, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a) & 125(b) of IPC and Section 185 of the M.V.Act and consequential proceedings arising out of F.I.R. are quashed.
Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any.
Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but, if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court.