SUMIT CHANDEL 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. 65, dtd. 6/6/2022, under Ss. 279 and 337 of IPC, registered with Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur, 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 complainant-Ravi Kumar, who alleged that on 6/6/2022, while he alongwith his family members was going fromBaijnath to Ghumarwin in his Car bearing registration No.DL3CCF-3212, vehicle bearing registration No. HP 89 1187 being driven by the petitioner in high speed came from the opposite side and hit his vehicle, as a result of which, he as well as his family members suffered injuries. He also alleged that in the incident, considerable damage was also caused to his vehicle. Though after completion of the investigation, police 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. 12/9/2022, 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 complainant Ravi Kumar, so that correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on record is ascertained. Though instructions of learned Additional Advocate General are awaited, but complainant Ravi Kumar has come present. He states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment and as such, he does not wish to prosecute the case further. He states that since petitioner has adequately compensated him for the damage caused to his vehicle as well as injuries suffered by him and his family members, he shall have no objection in case prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signatures on the same. His statement is taken on record.