Pradeep Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 17 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Pradeep Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 10 January, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
      Criminal Writ Petition No. 1714 of 2023
                         With
         Compounding Application IA No.1 of 2023

Pradeep Singh and Another                    ......Petitioners

                             Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another          ..... Respondents


Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.2.

                        JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioners Pradeep Singh and

Pramod Kumar seek quashing of FIR No.0398 of 2023,

under Section 304-A IPC, Police Station ITI, District-

Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of amicable

settlement between the parties. A joint compounding

application has been filed along with the affidavits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 04.12.2023, at

08:30 PM, the informant's son was moving on a

motorcycle. He hit a dumper, parked alongside the

road without its parking light on, which is a cause of

rash and negligent act, which resulted into the death

of a person.

4. This matter was earlier taken up on

08.01.2024 when the Court requested learned State

Counsel to get instructions as to whether the

petitioners are ever wanted in the case or not. Today,

learned State Counsel gives a statement that the

petitioner no.1, Pradeep Singh, is not at all wanted in

the case.

5. The petition stands dismissed qua the

petitioner no.1, Pradeep Singh, based on the statement

given by learned State Counsel.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the parties have amicably settled the

dispute; it is not a case of negligence of the petitioner

no.2, Pramod Kumar.

7. Petitioner no.2, Pramod Kumar, and the

respondent no.2, the informant, both are present

before the Court.

8. The Court wanted to know from the

respondent no.2 as to whether he accepts the

compromise? He would submit that he is frustrated.

He is also injured in an accident. He does not want to

buy any more trouble. Therefore, he wants to close the

case.

9. The Court asked him that there is no

question of his being troubled. He has simply lodged

an FIR. Why he wants to close the case? He still

repeats that he does not want to proceed with the

case. He does not want to buy any trouble.

10. In his affidavit filed along with the

compounding application, the respondent no.2 has

deposed otherwise. He has deposed in his affidavit that

he has taken Rs. 3 Lakhs. He has settled the dispute

for Rs. 3 Lakhs. Does it mean that the respondent no.2

has been won over by the petitioner no.2 or by any

other person? Does it mean that the respondent no.2

has been persuaded to settle the dispute for

consideration? It is evident that the respondent no.2

has not accepted the compromise, as alleged by him. It

appears that he has been influenced. It is not a

voluntary compromise. Hence, the compounding

application deserves to be rejected.

11. The compounding application is rejected.

12. Consequently, the writ petition is also

dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.01.2024 Ravi Bisht