Naresh Kumar v. State Of Punjab And ANR

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-20894 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:27.7.2016 Naresh Kumar .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents ....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for complainant-respondent No.2.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.139 dated 28.4.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2). The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantVipan Thakur on the allegations that he along with Superintendent Jail was going in his car bearing No.PB-07-AF-3000 from Sherpur Chowk towards Jagraon bridge side and when reached near Dholewal Chowk and he turned the car, suddenly a Verna car bearing No.PB-10-CP-5224 driven by the

Cr. Misc. No.M-20894 of 2016 [2] petitioner struck his car, which hit on the back door of the car and both the cars were badly damaged and they suffered minor injuries on their persons. It has further been alleged that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, has sent his report dated 12.7.2016 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainantrespondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 and have gone through the record. In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the

Cr. Misc. No.M-20894 of 2016 [3] parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.139 dated 28.4.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. July 27, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No