The Himachal Pradesh High Court affirms that FIRs registered under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC may be quashed when all injured parties and the accused have genuinely settled their dispute. The judgment maintains the established principle that the primary object of law is to promote peace, and the continuance of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would be an abuse of process. This case serves as a binding precedent for Himachal Pradesh courts regarding the applicability of compromise in compoundable and non-serious offences.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMMO/937/2025 of MANISH SHARMA Vs STATE OF HP AND ORS |
| CNR | HPHC010569952025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh; clarifies quashing on compromise in minor accident cases under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (BNSS), Procedural Law, IPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIRs and criminal proceedings for minor accident offences (Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC) can be quashed on basis of a genuine compromise between all affected parties. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when all injured parties and the accused have voluntarily settled their dispute, and where the offences are not serious or heinous, quashing the FIR is justified. The acceptance of such a compromise promotes peace and harmony, avoids unnecessary prosecution, and conserves judicial time. The proceedings against the petitioner, if permitted to continue after a full and genuine settlement, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The compromise deed presented was found to be genuine and voluntarily entered into without pressure. Consequently, the inherent powers were exercised to quash the proceedings. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 alleging rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, resulting in injuries to multiple persons. After investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, all injured parties and the accused executed a genuine, voluntary compromise. They appeared before the court, admitted to the compromise, and expressed no objection to the quashing of proceedings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment affirms that FIRs under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC may be quashed on the basis of a genuine compromise when all injured parties and the accused have settled voluntarily and without coercion.
- The court emphasized the importance of judicial economy and avoiding wasteful continuation of proceedings when there is no real dispute left.
- Lawyers can rely on this precedent within Himachal Pradesh to seek quashing of similar criminal proceedings arising from minor traffic accidents where settlement has been reached.
- The court reiterated the principle that the primary object of law is to maintain peace and harmony in society, even in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC, relating to rash and negligent driving causing injuries.
- During proceedings, all parties involved, including the complainant and other injured persons, admitted on oath to having voluntarily entered a compromise without any coercion.
- The court reasoned that once the original complainant and the injured have resolved the dispute amicably, the chances of successful prosecution diminish significantly.
- Continuing with the prosecution in light of a full compromise would constitute abuse of process and run contrary to the interests of justice.
- The primary objective of criminal law is to ensure peace and harmony, and accepting the compromise would serve that purpose while conserving judicial resources.
- After satisfying itself of the genuineness and voluntariness of the compromise (Annexure P-2), the court exercised its powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The FIR and criminal proceedings arose out of a personal dispute where all injured parties and the petitioner have amicably settled.
- The accident was a result of an error in judgment, not rash or negligent driving.
- Continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process given the genuine compromise (Annexure P-2).
Respondent (State):
- Detailed the status of investigation and pendency of the charge-sheet before the trial court (via status report).
- No objection from the complainant and injured parties was indicated during the hearing.
Respondents No.2 to 5 (Complainant and Injured Parties):
- Appeared before the court and confirmed, on oath, the voluntary and genuine nature of the compromise.
- Expressed they have no objection to the petition being allowed and FIR and proceedings being quashed.
Factual Background
The case arose from an accident on 15.11.2022 involving the petitioner’s vehicle and a taxi near Shoghi, Shimla, resulting in injuries to several individuals including the petitioner. FIR No.278 of 2022 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC on the basis of a complaint by one of the injured parties. After completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, all affected parties, including the complainant and injured, reached a voluntary compromise with the petitioner and jointly sought quashing of proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment principally involved interpretation and application of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) concerning the court’s inherent power to quash proceedings.
- The offences in question were under Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life), and 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life) of the IPC.
- The court determined that quashing is appropriate when parties have genuinely settled, following the object of law to maintain societal peace and avoid unnecessary prosecution in non-serious offences.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The court mandated that the compromise deed and statements of the parties be made part of the judgment record, reinforcing the procedural requirement for documentary and oral evidence of settlement in quashing petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court followed and reaffirmed established principles regarding quashing of minor non-heinous criminal proceedings on the basis of genuine compromise between parties.