Amita Kashyap vs State Of H.P. & Anr

Virender Singh, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.) for quashing of FIR No. 0231 dated 15.10.2018, (hereinafter referred toa s ‘the FIR in question’), under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), registered with Police Station, Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 8, Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), vide case No. 137 of 2019.

According to the petitioner, on the statement of respondent No. 2, FIR in question, has been registered, against her. Thereafter, the Police has conducted the investigation and submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

It is the case of the petitioner that she was not at fault, as the accident in question took place, due to error of judgment.

It is the further case of the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between her and respondent No. 2, vide Annexure P-2, annexed with the petition.

On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made.

When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein, about the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered, and criminal machinery swung into motion.

It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court.

Respondent No. 2, who has lodged FIR against the petitioner, by levelling the allegations of rash and negligent driving, against her, appeared before this Court, and stated that petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, and the accident in question took place due to error of judgment.

Another reason for compromising the matter has also been deposed by respondent No. 2, by stating that she, as well as, petitioner, are residents of the same area, and in order to maintain their cordial relations, in future, they have compromised the matter.

She has further deposed that on the basis of compromise, she does not want to proceed further with the matter, and that she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioner.

Heard.

Complainant/respondent No. 2 has categorically stated, in her statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations between them, as they are residents of same area.

In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

When, the complainant has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving by deposing on oath that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident in question had taken place, due to error of judgment, then, the chances of success of the case of prosecution, against the petitioner, are not so bright.

When, the parties have settled the dispute with regard to FIR in question, then, the compromise, which has been entered into, between the parties, annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2, should be accepted by this Court, as, no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings, pending before the trial Court, alive.

The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.

Acceptance of the compromise will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it.

Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 0231, dated 15.10.2018, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

The statements, so recorded today and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment.

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.