Avtar Singh And Others vs State Of Hp And Another on 17 May, 2018

[Cites 5, Cited by 3]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Avtar Singh And Others vs State Of Hp And Another on 17 May, 2018

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                     Cr.MMO No. 99 of 2018.
                                                     Decided on: 17.5.2018.




                                                                          .

    Avtar Singh and others                                                ....Petitioners.





                      Versus

    State of HP and another                                             ... Respondents.
    ................................................................................................





    Coram

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1                No.


    For the petitioners                      : Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate.

    For respondents                          : M/s. Sanjeev Sood & Desh Raj Thakur,
                                                Addl. Advocate Generals.



    Ajay Mohan Goel, J (Oral)

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, which include accused as also the complainant and father and mother of the deceased-Reeta, have jointly prayed that as the matter which resulted in registration of FIR No. 33 of 2017, dated 7.3.2017, under Sections 279, 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 187 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., stands amicably settled between the parties, therefore, complainant, namely, Shakila 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2018 20:22:20 :::HCHP 2

Khatun (Petitioner No. 2) as also parents of deceased, namely, Mukesh Garg and Suman Devi (Petitioners No. 3 and 4), are no more .

interested in continuing the criminal proceedings so initiated as a result of registration of the FIR in issue and, in fact, they have no objection, in case FIR in issue as also ensuing criminal proceedings, if any, are ordered to be quashed and set aside. Compromise entered into between the parties is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2.

Petitioner No. 2, i.e. the complainant and petitioners No. 3 and 4, father and mother of deceased-Reeta, respectively have acknowledged execution as well as contents of compromise Annexure P-2. All the petitioners have been duly recognized by Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, learned Counsel. Separate statements of the complainant and parents of deceased stand recorded, wherein, they have stated that they have no objection in case FIR, which stood lodged at the behest of petitioner No. 2, is quashed and set aside and so as the subsequent criminal proceedings, if any.

2. In the reply so filed to the petition, the State has expressed its reservation to the petition so filed under Section 482 of of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR, but in my considered view, as the matter stands settled with the accused by the complainant as well as by parents of the deceased, the trial will also ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2018 20:22:20 :::HCHP 3 be a futility now because, in my considered view chances of conviction stand drastically reduced in lieu of the compromise so .

entered into between the complainant, prenents of deceased and the accused. Therefore, in my considered view, it is a fit case where the Court should exercise its discretion under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

for quashing of said FIR, as also ensuing criminal proceedings.

3. Accordingly, in view of above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 33 of 2017, dated 7.3.2017, registered under Sections 279, 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 187 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., as well as subsequent criminal proceedings, which have been ensued from the said FIR, are quashed and set aside taking into consideration the compromise which has entered between the complainant i.e. petitioner No. 2, father and mother of the deceased, i.e. petitioner No. 3 and 4 and the accused i.e. petitioner No.1 and the statements to this effect made by Petitioners No. 2 to 4 in this Court, which shall form part and parcel of the judgment.

4. Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 17th May, 2018.

(Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2018 20:22:20 :::HCHP 4 .

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2018 20:22:20 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court