Compromise between parties in vehicular offences can lead to quashing of FIR when no negligence is established, promoting societal peace and judicial efficiency.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 180 of 2020, dated 13.12.2020, under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, in order to maintain their cordial relations.

3. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2.

4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made.

5. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

6. It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

7. Today, respondent No. 2, who, has put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between him and the petitioner. According to him, there was no negligence on part of the petitioner, in the accident in question, as the same had taken place, due to error of judgment.

8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, as, the parties want to maintain cordial relations. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner.

10. Heard.

11. From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties.

12. The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. In addition to this, he has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing that he was not negligent while driving and the accident in question had taken place, due to error of judgment. Lastly, he has submitted that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed.

13. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

14. The primar