AMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as ' Cr.PC ') has been filed by petitioner, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties, for quashing of FIR No.364 of 2019, dated 18.10.2019, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as ' IPC ') and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as 'MV Act'), registered at Police Station Una Sadar, District Una, H.P.

(2.) Petitioner Amit Kumar and respondents No.4 and 5, Ravinder Kumar and Sangeeta Kumari, respectively, are present in person and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Their statements on oath have also been recorded.

(3.) Respondent No.4 in his statement has deposed that he is complainant in the present case and FIR was lodged immediately after the accident as the driver of car bearing No.PB-21F-3701 had not stopped on the spot after hitting his scooty, he alongwith his wife and children was traveling on the scooty and all of them had fallen on the road, and later on, it has come in their knowledge that the petitioner, who was driving the car at the relevant point of time, was in the relation of their villager and after reporting the matter to the police, the petitioner had approached them and had explained that on the spot road condition was bad and he did not hear the sound of hitting the scooty by the car and thought that the sound was on account of bad condition of the road and thus he had not stopped his car. He has further deposed that the petitioner had also explained to them that he was not having any intention to hit the scooty and run from the spot and had it been in his knowledge that car had hit the scooty, he would have definitely stopped his car on the spot. Respondent No.4 has also stated that the petitioner was known to his family by face and on verification, it was found that he is otherwise a good person and pursuing his studies and wants to go to abroad for pursuing further studies after completion of his M.Sc. in Chemistry and believing the explanation rendered by the petitioner, they are of the opinion that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner but because of the bad condition of the road and keeping in view this fact and also considering the career of the petitioner, they had decided not to pursue criminal case against the petitioner and they have entered into compromise with the petitioner, which is annexed as Annexure P-2 and he has signed the compromise and deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.