In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. Nos.62937-38 of 2010 and Criminal Misc. No.M-30902 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:2.12.2010 Jagdeep Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navneet Singh Sodhi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Cr. Misc. Nos.62937-38 of 2010: Copy of the charge-sheet dated 22.5.2002 (Annexure-P.3) attached with the criminal miscellaneous applications is taken on record subject to just exceptions. The criminal miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. Cr. Misc. No.M-30902 of 2010: The petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.124 dated 5.12.2001 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 Indian Penal Code; besides, Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis of compromise dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure-P.2) and all consequential proceedings arising Cr. Misc. No.M-30902 of 2010 [2] therefrom. As the case was taken up, Shri Navneet Singh Sodhi, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. He has submitted that the matter has indeed been compromised with the petitioner. The FIR (Annexure-P.1) has been registered on the statement of Narinder Pal Singh (respondent No.2). It is alleged that on 2.12.2001, he and Devinder Singh (respondents No.2 and 3) were going for their domestic work from Samrala to their Village on the scooter of Paramjit Singh bearing No.PB10-A-8178. Narinder Pal Singh (respondent No.2) was driving the scooter and Devinder Singh (respondent No.3) was riding pillion. At about 8.00 a.m. when they reached near Village Ajlodh, then from the front side an Esteem car bearing No.PB10-F-0267 came at a high speed and without blowing any horn negligently struck against the scooter. Due to the thrust, Narinder Pal Singh (respondent No.2) fell on the rear side boot of the car and then he fell on the ground. Driver of the car (petitioner) with a motive to run away reversed his car back and crushed the right knee of Narinder Pal Singh (respondent No.2) due to which the leg of Narinder Pal Singh (respondent No.2) was fractured below the knee joint and he also received injuries on the right side of his chest and other abrasions due to the striking of the car with the scooter. Devinder Singh (respondent No.3) received injuries on his leg on the right side of the thigh and on the left arm and other parts of his body. At the spot Paramjit Singh had reached and he saw the incident and then after arranging a vehicle the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Doraha. They had come to know that the name of the driver of the car was Jagdeep Singh (petitioner). The complainant (respondent No.2) Cr. Misc. No.M-30902 of 2010 [3] stated that he could identify the driver. The car driver had run away from the spot towards Samrala side. The accident occurred due to negligence and fast driving of the driver Jagdeep Singh (petitioner). The statement of Narinder Pal Singh (respondent No.2) was recorded. The matter has now been compromised in terms of compromise dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure-P.2). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the compromise, the impugned FIR (Annexure-P.1) may be quashed. It is submitted that all the offences in the case except for the offence under Section 279 IPC are compoundable. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 also submits that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR (Annexure-P.1). During the course of hearing, it has been submitted that the prosecution has examined all the witnesses in the case and the case is nearing completion. It may be noticed that the factors which are taken into consideration for quashing of the FIR in respect of the offences which are not compoundable are that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature; besides, the time saved in carrying out the trial can well be utilized for deciding other cases that are pending. In the present case, the dispute is not personal in nature inasmuch as it is a case of accident that had occurred. Besides, the time which could have been saved in deciding other cases has already been consumed. The case is at its fag end. It is to be kept in mind that the main offence is not compoundable. At this stage, it would be inexpedient to quash the FIR when the case is nearing completion. However, the proper course would be that the petitioner argues his case before the learned trial Cr. Misc. No.M-30902 of 2010 [4] Court on merits. However, the fact that they have compromised the matter would be a circumstance which the learned trial Court shall take into consideration for the purpose of sentencing the accused in case a finding of guilt is recorded against him. Accordingly, no ground for quashing the impugned FIR (Annexure-P.1) is made out at this stage and the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. However, in case the petitioner is convicted in the trial of the case, the fact that the dispute has been settled would be a circumstance which the learned trial Court shall take into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. December 2, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*