High Court may quash non-compoundable FIRs for rash/negligent driving causing death on genuine compromise by victim family, as offences not heinous, conviction remote, securing ends of justice and preventing process abuse. (28 words)

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 0045/2020 dated 7.6.2020, registered at Police Station Bangana, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC 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 respondents No.3- complainant (herein after referred to as “complainant”), who alleged that on 7.6.2020 at about 10:30am, while he was doing cleaning work of his Dhaba, one boy who had come riding his cycle was standing in front of his Dhabha. He alleged that suddenly, one car bearing registration No. PB06X0097, being driven by the petitioner came in high speed and hit the boy standing on the bicycle as well as chairs kept outside his Dhabha. He alleged that on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, boy standing near his Dhabha suffered multiple injuries, who later on succumbed to the injuries. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted against the petitioner.

3. Though 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 and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, Respondent-State has filed reply under the signature of SHO Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about the compromise.

5. Respondent No. 3 stated on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has come before this Court to make statement. He stated that since respondent No.2, who is mother of the deceased, has compromised the matter with the petitioner, he shall have no objection in case prayer made by him to quash the FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted.

6. Respondent No. 2 namely Smt. Sumna Devi, stated before this Court on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. She stated that since accident did not occur on account of fault of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment and the petitioner besides taking her deceased son to the hospital in his car immediately also provided necessary assistance to her, she does not want to prosecute the criminal proceedings further and shall have no objection in case, FIR as well as consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, they also admit their signatures on the same. Aforesaid statements are taken on record.

7. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, having heard aforesaid statement made by respondents stated that though in the unfortunate incident, one person has lost his life, but since complainant as well as mother of the deceased, have already compromised the matter, 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