Crl. Misc. No. M-19571 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Misc. No. M-19571 of 2009 Date of decision : October 27, 2009 * * * * * Gurdeep Singh ............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Yogesh Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for respondent no.2. * * * * * JORA SINGH, J. Gurdeep Singh filed this petition for quashing FIR No.45 dated 15.3.2006 under Sections 279/304-A IPC registered at Police Station Rampura, District Bathinda on the basis of compromise between the parties. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. State filed reply in the shape of affidavit of Rupinder Kumar Bhardwaj, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rampura Crl. Misc. No. M-19571 of 2009 2 Phul, District Bathinda to the effect that death of a child was due to rash and negligent driving of a vehicle by the petitioner. Respondent no.2 is the grandfather of the deceased and filed his affidavit to the effect that he has effected compromise with the petitioner. He has no objection if FIR No.45 dated 15.3.2006 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Vide order dated 25.8.2009, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded regarding compromise. Trial Court was further directed to record the statements of the parties and submit a report on or before the next date of hearing regarding the genuineness of the compromise. As per direction, trial Court submitted report to the effect that statements of the parties were recorded and the compromise is genuine one. Respondent no.2, present in person in Court admitted that as per compromise, he has received Rs.1,45,000/- from the petitioner. So he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. Learned State counsel states that the parties have effected compromise and in view of the compromise, he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. In a roadside accident, a child died due to the negligent and rash driving of petitioner. Respondent no.2 is the grand father of that child. But respondent no.2 is not going to support the prosecution story. He has collected an amount of Rs.1,45,000 from the petitioner. When the complainant is not going to support the prosecution story then ultimately accused is to be acquitted of the Crl. Misc. No. M-19571 of 2009 3 charge levelled against them. No useful purpose would be served to direct the accused to face trial. After compromise, there is no chance of further litigation. In view of all discussed above as per compromise amongst the parties, present petition is accepted. FIR No. 45 dated 15.3.2006 is quashed with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. October 27, 2009 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE