High Court quashed non-compoundable FIR for rash driving causing death under Section 482 CrPC on voluntary compromise by complainant/legal heirs, as offences not heinous, conviction remote, serving ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 104, dated 21.7.2023, under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of IPC, registered with Police Station Badsar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh 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.2-complainant (herein after referred to as “the complainant”), who alleged that on 21.7.2023 at about 10:30 am, while he had come towards Bihru Bazaar, and was coming back from the society, one scooty bearing registration No. HP 74-6945 being driven by the petitioner came in high speed from wrong side and hit a person namely Ram Lal, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries. Since it came to be specifically alleged by the complainant that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, case under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC came to be registered against the petitioner, however subsequently, Sh. Ram Lal died on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident, as a result of which case under Section 304-A also came to be registered 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. Respondent-State has filed reply under the signatures of Superintendent of Police Hamirpur, wherein prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR has been seriously opposed on the ground that petitioner is accused of serious crime punishable under Section 304A of IPC.

5. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 2 to 6 have come present and are being represented by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

6. Respondent No.2- Complainant Kuldeep Singh 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 respondents No. 3 to 6, who are legal heirs of the deceased Ram Lal, have 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.

7. Respondents No. 3 to 6 namely Sh.Kuldeep Chand, Smt. Sheela Devi, Smt. Bimla Devi and Smt. Asha Devi stated before this Court on oath that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. They stated that since petitioner is a young student having bright career ahead coupled with the fact that during treatment, deceased Ram Lal was taken good care by the petitioner, they do 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.

8. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, having heard aforesaid statement made by respondents states