- (1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.33 dated 14.3.2012 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 279, 337, 427 and 304-A IPC (later on Section 181 and 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act were added), registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana City and all the proceedings subsequent arising therefrom including the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, on the basis of compromise dated 21.01.2016(Annexure P-3).
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 7.8.2015 has held the petitioner guilty for committing the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC only and vide separate order, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- under Section 304-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. He submits that the appeal against the judgment dated 7.8.2015 is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. It is during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the matter has been compromised between the parties Quashing of the aforesaid FIR and setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2015 passed by the learned trial Court is sought on the basis of compromise dated 21.01.2016(Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties during pendency of the appeal before the learned appellate Court. Vide order dated February 10, 2016 passed by this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Court on for recording their respective statements with regard to compromise and the Appellate Court was directed to submits its report regarding the genuineness of the compromise. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated February 10, 2016, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana had recorded the statements of the parties and forwarded his report dated 02.03.2016 to the effect that the parties have willfully settled their differences and reached at a bona fide compromise without any pressure and the same is genuine.
(3.) On the basis of the statements of the parties and the report submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, it is established that respondent No.2-Mohit Sood and respondent No.3-Kusum Sood have genuinely entered into a compromise with the accused-petitioner. Mr.Narinder Singh Kamboj, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and filed Power of Attorney Court today, which is taken on record. He has also fairly conceded the factum of compromise entered into between the parties. He further submits that the compromise between the parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion.;