ORDER :

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 28.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Appeal No.10/2020 (CIS No.10/2020) whereby the said court has rejected and appeal and affirmed the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original Case No.945/2012 (CIS No.1755/2014) convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 & 304-A of IPC as under :

3. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant jointly pray that they have entered into a compromise, as the matter pertains to an accidental death. Learned counsel for the parties referred to the following judgment :-

Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 (4) Crimes 17 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

“It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable Under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or vested in this Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the Accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the Accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations. Having appraised the afore-stated para-meters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers Under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that:

Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature; Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest; Thirdly, given the nature of the offence