The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings based on settlements between the parties, guided by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2014 6 SCC 466.

SURESH KAIT, J.

Crl. M.A.10690/2015 (for exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

CRL.M.C. 2992/2015

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No. 70/2013 registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.02.2013 at about 8.30 PM, when respondent No. 7 alongwith respondent No. 9 and late Smt. Kamlesh Devi, wife of respondent No.2, were crossing the road in front of the school at Block-27 and reached near the bathroom in front of Block-26, Trilok Puri, New Delhi, met with an accident with car of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, respondents No. 7 and 9, i.e., daughter of respondent No.8, alongwith deceased Smt. Kamlesh Devi were taken to the hospital by the petitioner. However, the doctor declared Smt. Kamlesh Devi as brought dead as per MLC No.1994/13 and vide MLC Nos.1596/13 and 1595/13 opined that respondents No. 7 and 9 respectively have received simple injuries. Consequently, respondent No.3, son of the deceased, lodged the FIR in question against the petitioner.

3. Meanwhile, the petitioner and respondents No. 7 to 9 have amicably settled the matter vide compromise/settlement deed dated 24.03.2014 for a total sum of Rs.20,000/-, which has already been paid by the complainant. Vide compromise/settlement deed dated 03.04.2014, petitioner and the respondents No. 2 to 6 have also settled the matter amicably for a total sum of Rs.95,000/-, which has also been paid to the aforesaid respondents. Copies of the compromise/settlement noted above are annexed to the present petition as Annexure P-2. Affidavits of respondents No. 2 to 8 supporting this petition are also annexed to the present petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the aforementioned settlements arrived at between the parties, the respondents do not want to pursue the case further against the petitioner and have no objection if the present petition is allowed.

5. Respondents No.2, 3, 7 and 8 are personally present in the Court with their counsel and respondents No.4, 5, 6, and 9, are being represented by their natural fathers/guardians. All the respondents have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer SI Madan Lal. The aforesaid respondents submit that the matter has been settled with the petitioner, thus, they do not wish to pursue this case further against him and have no objection if the present petition is allowed.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after completion of investigation, police has filed the chargesheet, charges have been framed and the case is listed for prosecution evidence. He further submits that though the petitioner has compensated the respondents and if this Court is inclined to allow the present petition, the State has no objection if withdrawal of this case will have no affect on the proceedings pending under MACT in any manner.

7. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

“Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoun