RAJENDER THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 139 of 2016, dtd. 16/6/2016, under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Ss. 181, 185 and 196 of MV Act, registered with Police Station Baddi, District Solan, 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 the respondents No.2-complainant (herein after referred to as "the complainant"), who alleged that on 15/6/2016, while he had gone to Nalagarh from Shimla to collect milk in vehicle bearing registration No. HP073845 and reached at Sandoli Gurudwara, at about 12:30pm, one motorcycle bearing registration No.PB 37-C 7450, being driven by the petitioner came in high speed and hit his vehicle, as a consequence of which, driver of the motorcycle fell down on the road. He alleged that he took the petitioner to the hospital, but he was under the influence of the liquor. On the basis of aforesaid information, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant case came to be lodged against the petitioner. Though, after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them by way of compromise placed on record.

(3.) Pursuant to notice issued vide order dtd. 26/4/2022, respondent - State filed the reply and respondent No.2 Sulekh Chand came present in the Court on 26/5/2022. He stated on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter-se them and as such, shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted. Complainant stated that keeping in view the young age of the petitioner, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and has no objection in case, prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR is accepted. His statement recorded on 26/5/2022 is already on record. Since reply filed by the respondent-State was silent about the quantity of liquor present in the blood and urine of the petitioner, court directed the respondent-State to file status report with complete facts pertaining to the case. Though respondent States has filed the status report in terms of aforesaid order, but since same is silent qua the allegation, if any, of consumption of liquor, punishable under Sec. 304A, this Court finds no impediment in considering the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings.