Point of Law : Accident case – Compromise between parties – Offence not involving moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime – Proceedings can be quashed.

ORDER :

1. By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 5 of 2017, dated 16.1.2017, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC read with Section 185 of MV Act, registered with Police Station West Boileauganj, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveal that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of the respondent No. 2-complainant (herein after referred to as “the complainant”) who alleged that on 15.1.2017 at about 7:30 pm, while he was standing at the side of Boileauganj Summerhill road, one Alto Car bearing registration No. HP-52B -0642 being driven by the petitioner in high speed, hit him, as a consequence of which, respondent-complainant suffered injuries. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them by way of compromise placed on record.

3. Vide order dated 22.6.2022, this Court while directing the respondent-State to verify the factum with regard to compromise placed on recorded deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties, especially respondent No. 2, at whose behest FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be instituted. Pursuant to aforesaid order, HC Manoj Kumar, PS West, Shimla has come present with the status report, which is taken on record, perusal whereof though reveals factum with regard to accident occurred on the alleged date of the incident, but there is no mention, if any, with regard to compromise, if any, arrived inter-se parties.

4. Respondent No. 2, who is present in the Court and is duly represented by Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, on oath states that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. Respondent No. 2 stated that accident in question did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment. He stated that since he has fully recovered from the injuries, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made in the petition for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he admits his signature thereupon. Such statement made on oath is taken on record.

5. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, having heard aforesaid statement made by the complainant states that in view of the amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as consequent proceedings pending before the court below are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioner in view of the aforesaid statement made on oath by the respondent-complainant are very remote and bleak and as such, prayer made in the instant petition may be accepted.

6. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, whereby Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred above clearly depicts that in Para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the C