The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the power to compound offences under Section 320 of the Code. The court emphasized the need to consider the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the possibility of conviction in determining whether to quash the FIR and proceedings.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 258 of 2020, dated 15.10.2020 registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh under Ss. 279 and 337 IPC and Ss. 181 and 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, on the basis of compromise Annexure P-2, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2-Suraj who alleged that on 15.10.2020, while he alongwith his friend Jeetesh, respondent No.3 was going towards Shimla from Bhatta Kuffer driving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-8CL-1788, at 6.10 pm, a pick up bearing registration No.HP-64A-6168 being driven by the petitioner came in high speed from Dhalli side and hit his car, as a consequence of which, he and his friend Jeetesh suffered injuries. Though, the police after having investigated the matter, presented Challan in the competent court of law, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner compromised the matter with respondent Nos.2 and 3 whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably as such, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as detailed herein above and consequential proceedings, if any, pending in the competent court of law.

3. Vide order dated 14.6.2022, this court while directing respondent-State to have instructions with regard to compromise, if any between the parties, also deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties, especially respondent Nos. 2 and 3 so that correctness and genuineness of the compromise arrived inter se parties, could be ascertained.

4. Pursuant to order dated 14.6.2022, respondent State has filed the status report under the signature of the Station House Officer. Police Station concerned, enclosing therewith statement of respondent No.2, which reveals that the parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no objection in case FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, is quashed and set aside.

5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are being represented by Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate state on oath that they of their own volition and without any external pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioner. They further stated that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is the result of misunderstanding and accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving on the part of petitioner rather on account of glare of light and as such, they shall have no objection in case, prayer made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of FIR is accepted. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record, to be correct, they also admit their signatures on same. Their statements are taken on record.

6. Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, learned Assistant Advocate General, after having heard statements of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 recorded on oath, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case criminal proceedings against the petitioner are allowed to continue. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioner are remote and bleak, on account of statements made by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition for quashing of FIR as well as consequential proceedings, is allowed.

7. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental