The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between heinous and serious offences and those with a predominantly civil character when considering the quashing of criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is directed against judgment dated 9.3.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 2015, affirming judgment/order dated 25.2.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 334-1/10: 11-II/11, whereby learned Court below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month; and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, and, in default of payment of fine, accused has been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

2. Briefly stated the facts, as emerge from the record are that PW-1 Leela Devi, on 2.11.2010, got recorded her statement under Section 154 CrPC, alleging therein that on 2.11.2010 at about 6.45 pm, she alongwith her daughter Sonam, mother-in-law, Minjo and one Shri Krishan Chand of her village was going to have food in the house of near relation. When they reached Hyundai Workshop on NH- 21 near Patlikuhal Bazaar, one motorcycle being driven by the accused came in high speed and hit her mother-in-law, who suffered injuries and later succumbed to the said injuries. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR Ext. PW-9/A came to be registered against the accused under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. After completion of investigation, Challan was presented in the competent Court of law, who being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently vide judgment/order dated 25.2.2015, learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.

3. Accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, who vide judgment dated 9.3.2018, dismissed the same, as a consequence of which, judgment/order of conviction recorded by learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Courts below.

4. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to the compromise, Annexure A-1, available at page-49 annexed with CrMP No. 1127 of 2018 filed under Section 482 CrPC, contended that since both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, this court, while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC may quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings. Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner further stated that the complainant, Ms. Leela, at whose behest FIR detailed herein above, came to be registered, has also come present in the court for making her statement with respect to the compromise arrived inter se parties. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Advocate, who is present in the Court, has identified her. Complainant has also produced a copy of her Adhaar card, which is taken on record.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments contained in CrMP No. 1127 of 2018, as well as compromise, this court finds that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement inter se them and as such, prayer made for compounding the offenc