Criminal Misc. No. M- 1198 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 1198 of 2011 Date of decision:- 09.03.2011 Jagdish ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.522 dated 13.09.2006 under Sections 279,337,338,304-A and 427 IPC, registered at Police Station Ratia, District Fatehabad (Annexure P- 1) on the basis of compromise. The above mentioned FIR was registered against the petitioner with the allegations that due to rash and negligent driving of three wheeler an accident took place with the Jeep No. PBF-7251 in which school children were got injured and grand son of the complainant had died in the said accident. One of the accused Kala Ram has since died During the pending proceedings in the trial, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, which is taken on record as Annexure P-2). In the reply, filed by the State, it has been submitted that the accident has taken place due to to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Criminal Misc. No. M- 1198 of 2011 -2- three wheeler. Many children suffered injuries and grand son of the complainant died. Hence, the petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC, which is non-compoundable and compromise is not permissible in the eyes of law. In compliance of order dated 14.1.2011, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 15.2.2011 statements of complainant Madan Lal, Priyanka, Kamaljit Kaur, Ramandeep Kaur and Mohan Lal have been recorded. PW Hardeep was given up vide orders dated 14.10.2010 due to the reason of his tender age of about 9 years. As per statements the matter has been compromised between the parties. Offence under Section 279,337 and 304-A IPC are non- compoundable offence. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. Vide judgment dated 03.9.2009 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad has awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 2% per annum to the mother of the deceased child Paras. Copy of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad is Annexure A-1. After going through the facts of the above case, this Court is of the view that even though the accident had been caused by rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, who was driver of the said three wheeler. The complainant, who is the grand-father of the child has lost his child, wants to settle down the matter peacefully and is not interested in pursuing the proceedings with the trial. Since, there was no enmity and intention in the mind of the driver, the compromise is to bring peace. There is no rigid rule prescribed in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the event of compromise. In the present case this Court is of the opinion that the settlement between the parties is voluntarily and fair. All the complainants are children and they do not Criminal Misc. No. M- 1198 of 2011 -3- wish to pursue with the proceedings under trial. One of the child Hardeep was given up as he was at the tender age of nine years. Since the matter has been compromised without any coercion or threat, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the compromise. Reference is being made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy versus State of Karnataka and another 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 501, in this case a compromise has been effected in a case of road accident, in which there was a death of seven years old child on account of rash and negligent driving. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the Court of the Sessions Judge for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. During the pendency of appeal in the Supreme Court, a compromise was effected between the parties. It was held that the offence under Section 304-A IPC is non-compoundable as it is not covered by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Reference was made to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, where in cases of conviction in non- compoundable offences, the parties were allowed to compound the case in special facts and circumstances. The sentence awarded was reduced while maintaining the conviction. The said principles have been followed by the Supreme Court in Surendra Nath Mohanty and another versus State of Orissa 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 683, which was disposed of by a Three-Judge Bench, wherein in respect of a conviction under Section 326 IPC the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone together with fine. Of course, as mentioned hereinbefore, the said decision was rendered in the facts of the said case. Reference was also made to two other decisions of the Supreme Court in i) Ram Lal and another versus State of J & K 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 92 : and ii) Bachhu Singh versus State of U.P. 2000(10) SCC 313, wherein the same formula was applied. As far as the other proposition is concerned, Criminal Misc. No. M- 1198 of 2011 -4- reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Shetty versus State of Karnataka and another 2004(13) SCC 375 where the conviction was altered from Section 326 to 324 IPC and the offence was permitted to be compounded. There is yet another decision in the case of Y. Suresh Babu versus State of A.P. (2005)1 SCC 347 which deals directly with a conviction under Section 326 IPC. The Supreme Court allowed the parties to compound the case in the special facts and circumstances of the case, but also directed that the same was not to be treated as a precedent. In the present case, the proceedings in the FIR were at the stage of trial Court and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court, after accepting the compromise, the FIR No. 522 dated 13.09.2006 under Sections 279,337,338,304-A and 427 IPC, registered at Police Station Ratia, District Fatehabad, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. It is directed that the petitioner shall pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of death of his grand son Paras. The petition stands disposed of. March 09, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE