‘Compromise Deed’- No Need to Extent trial as there are bleak chances of conviction to secure the ends of justice: High Court of Shimla
When compromise deed is signed then, even if, the trial is allowed to be continued, there are bleak chances of conviction to secure the ends of justice. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Rajat Chauhan Versus State of H.P. & anr. [Cr. MMO No. 51 of 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia.
The petition was filed by petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No. 19 of 2020, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Nankhari, District Shimla, H.P., The respondent No.2- made a statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the police, alleged therein that he was an agriculturist and for the last 3-4 months unwell, as he had been operated. The petitioner, who is a student, is a son of his brother-in-law. When the petitioner reached near the house of respondent No.2 and was parking his vehicle on the edge of the road, respondent No.2 was watching from the roof of his house that the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and the occupants of the vehicle alighted, however, the petitioner again boarded the vehicle to recheck as to whether the vehicle has been parked properly or not. Thereafter, the petitioner again started the vehicle and parked the same and, in the meanwhile, the vehicle rolled down 100 meters from the road. Resultantly, the petitioner received simple injuries. Now, respondent No.2 entered into a compromise, on the basis of compromise deed, stating therein that he does not want to pursue the case against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 2 has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioner and the FIR/Challan, may be quashed and set aside. They referred the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667and Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, (2013) 4 SCC 58
The court disposed of the proceeding stating that, “this case to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested in this Court, under Section 482 of the Code and accordingly F.I.R No. 19 of 2020, dated 17.5.2020, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Nankhari, District Shimla, is ordered to be quashed and consequently, the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, are also ordered to be quashed. Even if, the trial is allowed to be continued, as the parties have compromised the matter, there are bleak chances of conviction to secure the ends of justice.”