AVINASH SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 94 of 2022, dtd. 25/3/2022, under Ss. 279, 337 and 304A of IPC, registered with Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, 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.4-complainant (herein after referred to as "the complainant"), who alleged that on 25/3/2022, while he was going towards Nagawadi from his home on foot at 11:45am, one car bearing registration No. HP28-B-7398 being driven by the petitioner came in high speed and while overtaking another vehicle hit with a tree on the side of the road, as a result of which, both the occupants of the car i.e. petitioner and Lakhbir, suffered injuries. Complainant alleged that he with the help of other persons present on the spot took both the occupants of the car to the hospital, where petitioner was discharged after the treatment, whereas other person namely Lakhbir Singh was not found fit to give the statement. On the basis of aforesaid statement, case under Sec. 279 and 337 of IPC came to be registered against the petitioner, but since other occupants of the car Lakhbir Singh expired during treatment, police also lodged case under Sec. 304-A 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 and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

(3.) Vide order dtd. 28/12/2022, this Court while directing the respondent-State to verify factum with regard to compromise also deemed it necessary to cause presence of the respondents so that factum with regard to correctness and genuineness of the compromise, placed on record, could be ascertained. Though status report on behalf of the respondent-State is awaited, but pursuant to order dtd. 28/12/2022, respondents No. 2 to 4 have come present and are being represented by Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are the parents of deceased Lakhbir, whereas respondent No.4 is the complainant, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged.