GIRISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition stands instituted by the petitioner-accused under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he makes a prayer for quashing of FIR No. 107 of 2017 of27.11.2017, registered at Police Station, Arki, District Solan, HP wherein the petitioner is alleged to commit offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, besides a prayer is made therein that consequential criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner be also ordered to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) During the pendency of the petition before this Court, the respondent/complainant recorded her statement on oath, statement whereof stand duly reduced into writing and signatured by her, wherein she "made" a disclosure therein qua an amicable settlement occurring qua the relevant dispute with the petitioner /accused herein. She has also proceeded to therein unveil qua hers holding no objection in case the instant petition preferred by the petitioner before this Court for quashing of FIR No. 107 of 2017, of 27.11.2017, registered at Police Station, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is accepted. Given the statement of the espondent/ complainant, this Court hence accepts the instant petition. Even though some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non-compoundable, however, in light of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, relevant paragraph 11 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, whereupon this Court holds leverage to pronounce an order for quashing an FIR besides consequential proceedings launched in pursuance thereof, even in respect of non compoundable offences, especially, for preventing abuse of process of Court or for securing the ends of justice, besides when in the face of material qua an evident settlement arrived at inter se the petitioners qua the relevant offence(s), render bleak the chances of the accused suffering conviction. Paragraph No.11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

(3.) Consequently, with a settlement standing arrived at inter se the parties herein, thereupon this Court is constrained, to hence conclude (i) that even if some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non compoundable, yet, for securing the ends of justice besides for precluding the petitioner/accused being subjected to the ordeal of unnecessary harassment and humiliation, of, facing trial, (ii) significantly when the respondent/complainant in her statement recorded on oath, duly reduced into writing and signatured by her, communicates therein qua hers, not intending to prosecute the petitioner/accused, (iii) thereupon the compromise/settlement arrived at inter se the parties, warrants imputation of reverence thereon by this Court. Moreover, what further prods this Court to revere the settlement arrived at inter se the parties, is comprised in the fact "of with the" victim of the offence(s) (v) through her mother, being uninterested in prosecuting the petitioner/accused, also the complainant being un- interested in prosecuting the petitioner/accused, (vi) AND hers' disclosing, that, the settlement is for the benefit and welfare of the minor child, (vii) resultantly when obviously the chances of the petitioner /accused suffering conviction are rendered bleak/remote, factum whereof qua the remoteness and bleakness of the petitioner /accused suffering conviction, stands expostulated, in the relevant paragraph 11 of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, to be, a relevant and guiding parameter, for accepting the settlement arrived at inter se the parties, even when some of the offences are non-compoundable, as in this case.