CHANDAN PARMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 162 of 2021, dtd. 21/7/2021, under Sec. 279 of IPC and Sec. 187 of MV Act, registered with Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

(2.) Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveal that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondents No.3-complainant (herein after referred to as "the complainant"), who alleged that on 20/7/2021, he had parked his three wheeler near Jail Road Mandi and in front of his vehicle, car bearing registration No.HP33B 2286 was parked. He alleged that behind his three wheeler, there was another vehicle bearing registration No.HP65 1607 parked. He alleged that on 9:45pm, while he was standing with his friend at his shop, car bearing registration No. HP33G1929 being driven by the petitioner came in high speed and hit the vehicle bearing registration No.HP33B2286, as a consequence of which, his three wheeler was also hit, which in turn also hit vehicle No.HP65 1607. On the basis of aforesaid statement made by the complainant, police lodged FIR and after completion of investigation, presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them by way of compromise placed on record.

(3.) Vide order dtd. 7/7/2022, this Court while directing the respondents- State to verify the factum with regard to compromise placed on recorded deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties, especially respondent No.3, so that correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on record is ascertained. Though instructions of learned Additional Advocate General are awaited, but respondent No.3 Chaman Lal, who is present in the court and being represented by Mr. Gaurav, Advocate, states on oath that they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. He states that since accident in question did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and he has been duly compensated qua the damage caused to his three wheeler, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law is accepted.