DINESH MOHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Dinesh Mohan (accused) has sought the quashing of FIR No. 78 dated 14.6.2004, registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC at Police Station Samrala, District Khanna (Annexure-P-1) (Section 304-A added later on) alongwith all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on account of a compromise dated 29.1.2014 (Annexure-P-3), arrived at between the parties.

(2.) It is stated that after the registration of the FIR in question, the petitioner/accused was tried and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and 2 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof, imprisonment of 30 days, by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala, vide judgment and order dated 14.3.2011 (Annexure-P-2). The petitioner/accused has filed an appeal against the said judgment, which is pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. It is further stated that during the pendency of the said appeal, with the intervention of the respectables of the village and gram panchayat, a compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has been reduced into writing on 29.1.2014. The parties have settled their dispute and the complainant and his mother Smt. Manjit Kaur had agreed to get the FIR in question quashed. Complainant/respondent No. 2 Surinder Singh and his mother Smt. Manjit Kaur (wife of deceased Prem Singh) had given affidavits in this regard, which are Annexures-P-4 and P-5 respectively. Hence, the prayer has been made for quashing the FIR in question and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Notice to the respondents in this case was issued by this Court on 19.2.2014. Private respondent No. 2 has not disputed the compromise, whereas learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab has opposed the compromise. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the file.

(3.) It is necessary to state the brief facts of the case. The present case was registered on the statement of complainant/respondent No. 2 Surinder Singh, son of Prem Singh (deceased). It was alleged that his mother Manjit Kaur and father Prem Singh were standing on the unmetalled passage leading to their house. His father Prem Singh was sitting on a scooter bearing No. PB0-43-8184, then a car bearing registration No. PB-10-BD- 5543 came from Chandigarh side. Dinesh Mohan (accused/petitioner) was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and he rammed the car into Prem Singh. The scooter was thrown away and the car driver fled away from the spot. Prem Singh ultimately succumbed to the injuries.