PADMANABH RAWAL Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service.

(2.) This Criminal Writ Petition seeks quashing of an FIR registered at Panjim Police Station. The FIR is in respect of offences under Sections 279, 338 and 504 of IPC. The FIR states that the petitioner accused, who was riding a bullet motorcycle, rode it in a rash and negligence manner causing a fracture injury to the rider of another scooter, who is the father of the complainant. The present quashing prayer is on the footing that the petitioner's case that the accident was not on account of his rashness or negligence and was purely a fortuitous accidental circumstance, is not disputed by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant accepts that the complaint was filed on account of a misunderstanding between the petitioner on the one hand, the complainant and her father (the respondents herein) on the other. The petitioner has produced along with the petition an affidavit sworn by the respondents, testifying to this circumstance and making it clear that they had no grievance against the petitioner and, as such, were not desirous of continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

(3.) On the last occasion, we made it clear that considering the nature of the offence alleged against him, the petitioner must come out forthright and produce before the Court the writing executed between the parties, if any. The petitioner has produced before the Court consent terms drawn between the parties. The consent terms indicate that the family of the petitioner had paid the entire medical expense of respondent no.3 including allied and miscellaneous expenses and compensated respondent no.3 for loss, if any, caused to respondents no.3 & 4 due to the unfortunate incident. The consent terms also indicate that the petitioner had repeatedly checked the status of health of respondent no.3 with respondent no.4, offering to render all assistance for speedy recovery of respondent no.3.