The court upheld that FIRs in non-heinous offences can be quashed if there is an amicable settlement between the parties, particularly when the case involves family relationships and no societal harm arises from the quashing.

Ranjan Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner ­accused [Varun Galhotra @ Vanu] has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure[hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’] , seeking quashing and setting ­a side the FIR No.0096 of 2019 under Sections 279 , 337, 304­AA of the INDIAN PENAL CODE [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] read with Section 185 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT [hereinafter referred to as ‘ACT’] registered on 22.06.2019, at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra [H.P.] and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom which are pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharamshala, District Kangra [H.P.] in Police Challan No. 203 of 2019 titled as State of H.P. versus Varun.

2. Factual matrix is that on 22.06.2019, a person, named Vishal informed the police; namely Chandan telephonically that a vehicle met with an accident, as it had overturned near village Kandi, on Khaniyara road. Thereafter, police officials found that a car bearing No.PB­052­3007, got struck with a water pipe and a young man was found trapped between the pipe and the vehicle. On inquiry by the police, it was found that Varun Galhotra [Petitioner], Saurav, Baljinder Singh and Lavish Galhotra were travelling together and this vehicle was driven by Varun Galhotra [Petitioner]. After the accident, injured persons were taken to hospital and were medically examined. However, Lavish Galhotra [son of respondents No.2 &3], was declared dead by Medical Officer. On the basis of this, an F.I.R No. 0096/2019 dated 22.06.2019 was registered under Section 279 , 337, 304AA and 185 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .

3. Consequent upon the registration of FIR on 22.06.2019 (Annexure P­1), the police conducted the investigation, where after the petitioner­ Varun Galhotra was arrayed as an accused in the matter. Investigation narrates that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner [Varun Galhotra], who was driving the vehicle­ Alto Car, bearing Registration No.PB­052­3007, resulting in death of Lavish Galhotra.

4. Consequent upon the completion of investigation, the charge­-sheet was filed in the Court, upon which, Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharamshala, District Kangra [H.P.] took cognizance and the proceedings are now pending before the trial Court.

5. After registration of FIR and during the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner ­accused [Varun Galhotra @ Vanu] and respondents No.2 & 3 [who are parents of deceased, Lavish Galhotra], have arrived at compromise on 19.10.2023 [Annexure P­3], stating that the alleged incident had occurred due to mis ­judgment by the petitioner on the spot, despite the fact that he was driving in a safe and cautious manner and since the parties have compromised the matter, the continuance of the matter adversely affect either of parties.

6. Upon issuance of notice on 16.03.2024, the State Authorities were directed to file reply to the aforesaid petition, however, on 20.04.2024, Learned State Counsel has furnished the Status Report dated 10.04.2024, on the instructions of SHO Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, stating that investigation is over and the matter has been referred for trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala [H.P.].

So far as the compromise dated 19.10.2023 [Annexure P­3] is concerned, the State has neither stipulated any adversarial circumstances nor raised any objection with respect to the plea for quashing FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

7. Heard Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajeet Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General as well as Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that once the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 Netar Pal [father of deceased], respondent No.3 Mamta Rani (mother of deceased) and the respondents No.4 & 5 Saurav