Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 35/2024 dated 2.3.2024, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279, 337 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.

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 “complainant”), who alleged that on 1.3.2024 at about 7:30pm, while he was going towards Ratti, driving his vehicle and had reached near Ner Chowk Bazar, one tractor bearing registration No. HP31A7229, which at the relevant time, was moving ahead of his vehicle ran over the divider, as a result of which, trolley attached with tractor turned turtle. He alleged that he immediately alighted from his vehicle and found that 2-3 persons, who were travelling in the trolley were trapped below the trolley. He alleged that one of the injured person namely Suresh Kumar succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Since complainant alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor i.e. petitioner, FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted against the petitioner.

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.

Though vide order dated 28.4.2026, this court directed the respondent-State to file status report, but same has not been received, however, complainant Puneet Kumar, Smt. Mamta Devi (wife) and Smt. Sandhya Devi (mother) have come present and are being represented by Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

Respondent No. 2 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 submitted that he had simply informed the police with regard to accident, but never told that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. He stated that since respondents No.3 and 4, who are wife and mother of the deceased, 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. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signature upon the compromise.

Respondent No. 3 Smt. Mamta Devi (wife) and Smt. Sandhya (mother), 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 settled their dispute amicably. They stated that FIR sought to be quashed is result of misunderstanding because subsequent to lodging of FIR, they came to know that accident did not occur on account of fault of the petitioner. Since petitioner took lot of care of us and the deceased coupled with the fact that he belongs to same area, 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.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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, wife and mother of the deceased, have already compromised the matter, no fruitful purpose would be served in c