The sparing and cautious exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the impact on society, and the possibility of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 0116 of 2016, dated 6.6.2016 under Section 279 of IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at police Station Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.4/ complainant namely, Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, who alleged that on 6.6.2016, while he was coming back from Bithal Rampur in his car bearing registration No. HP-25-C-0990, Alto car bearing registration No. HP-26-A-1322 being driven by the petitioner/accused in rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and hit his car, as a consequence of which, huge loss has been caused to his vehicle. Though, police after completion of the investigation presented the challan in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner entered into the compromise with respondent No.4/complainant, as is evident from the compromise (Annexure P-3) and as such, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law.

3. Vide order dated 19.7.2021, this Court while issuing notice deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties in the court, especially respondent No.4/complainant, so that correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on record could be ascertained. Besides above, this Court also directed learned Additional Advocate General to verify the aforesaid factum of compromise, if any, interse parties from the police station concerned.

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, respondent No.4/complainant has come present in Court and is being represented by Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. Respondent No.4/complainant states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the present petitioner, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them and as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition for quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law, is accepted. He states that compromise placed on record is genuine and it bears his signatures. His statement is taken on record.

5. Having heard aforesaid statement made by respondent No.4/complainant, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequence proceedings sought to be quashed are allowed to sustain. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioner/accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statement made by respondent No.4/complainant before this Court and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petitions is allowed.

6. This Court, after having carefully perused the compromise, which has been duly effected between the parties, sees substantial force in the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that offences in the instant case can be ordered to be compounded.

7. 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