Whether approved for reporting?

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No.322 of 2023, dated 21.12.2023, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise.

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-Mr. Harminedr Singh (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 21.12.2023, while he was at his vegetable shop, Panjwar, one Brezza car bearing registration No.HP-36-E- 1054, hit one white colored scooty bearing No.HP-19-D-8537, being driven by the deceased Kashmir Singh, as a result thereof, he fell on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. Though petitioner with the help of local people took the deceased to the nearby hospital, but unfortunately he succumbed to the injuries. In the afore background, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodgred against the petitioner.

Though after completion of investigation, Police has already presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of law.

In terms of order dated 30.03.2026, respondent-State has filed status report, which is silent about compromise. In terms of afore order, complainant as well as respondent No.3, i.e. wife of deceased, have come present and are being represented by Mr. Piyush Chandel, Advocate. Complainant states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure, has come before this Court to make statement. He states that parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them.. He states that though he had no occasion to see the accident with his eyes, but he had reached on the spot after having heard loud noise and as such, he is not in a position to state whether accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner or not. He states that since family of deceased has already settled the matter with the petitioner, who has duly compensated them, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in crase FIR in question as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement made on oath is taken on record.

Respondent No.3, i.e. wife of the deceased, also states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. She states that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is a result of misunderstanding, because subsequently she came to know that accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment and petitioner took a lot of care of her deceased-husband as well as her family. She states that since she has been duly compensated, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted and accused is acqu