SATPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REPLY by way of affidavit of respondent No.2 filed in Court today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners seeks quashing of FIR No.35 dated 21.6.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Naggal, District Ambala for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Gulab Singh (respondent No.2). It is alleged by him that on 18.6.2010 he was coming from Chandigarh to his Village Thol in his Maruti car 800 CC bearing No.HR-05K-6020. His uncle Jai Singh and his son Kamaljeet Singh were also in the car. At about 3.00 p.m. when they were ahead of the Mathedi Petrol Pump to Village Mathedi then from the opposite side a Maruti car 800 CC bearing registration No.CH-03J-5749 with an unknown driver came from the side of Mathedi chowk by driving his car in a rash and negligent manner. The car coming from the opposite side came on the wrong side and hit the car of the complainant Gulab Singh (respondent No.2). Due to this they received injuries. The complainant Gulab Singh (respondent No.2) was admitted in the Civil Hospital Ambala City for treatment. The uncle of the complainant, namely, Jai Singh, who was also in the car received injuries. The driver of the car that was coming from the opposite side ran away. The matter has now been amicably settled by way of compromise dated 18.7.2010 (Annexure-P.2). It is stated that both the cars had got damaged in the accident. Both the parties received injuries and both were under treatment. Both the parties want to live peacefully. The compromise is signed by Gulab Singh-complainant (respondent No.2) and his uncle Jai Singh. It is also signed by Satpal Singh (petitioner) who was driver of the second car coming from the side of Village Mathedi. Dilbagh Singh, father of the petitioner has also signed the affidavit. The accident, it is submitted, had occurred due to the village road being narrow and was purely an accident and there was no element of rashness and negligence involved. The parties have amicably resolved their dispute. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in case the parties have settled their dispute, the State would have no serious objection. A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges) has observed as follows: