SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The epitome of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 30.1.2012, Surjit Singh (deceased) s/o Ram Lal was going towards his village on his bicycle, whereas complainant Kuldeep Singh s/o Amar Singh (for brevity "the complainant") was going behind him on his cycle. At about 7.30 P.M., as soon as, they reached near the turn of Rodiyan Wale (place of occurrence), in the meantime, an Innova car, bearing registration No.PB-10-BV-4158 (for short "the offending vehicle"), being driven by petitioner Satish Kumar s/o Ram Avtar (accused) at a high speed, rash, negligent and in careless manner, came and it rammed into the bicycle of Surjit Singh, culminating into his death. The petitioner ran away from the spot after causing the accident.

(2.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the accident in question had taken place due to rash & negligent driving of the petitioner while driving the offending vehicle, in which, Surjit Singh had died. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.6 dated 31.1.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 279, 304-A and 427 IPC by the police of Police Station Mantiana,. District Hoshiarpur in the manner depicted here-inabove.

(3.) Sequelly, instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, now the petitioner (main accused) has preferred the instant petition to quash the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of alleged undated compromise (Annexure P2).