The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement, guided by the principles of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the court process, as outlined in 'Gian Singh v. State of Punjab' and 'Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab'.

Sunil Gaur, J.:--

1. Quashing of FIR No. 234/2011, under Sections 279/304-A of IPC and Sections 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act registered at police station Khyala, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 15th February, 2014 (Annexure-4) and on the ground that no culpable negligence is attributable to petitioner.

2. Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, submits that respondents No. 2 & 3, present in the Court, have been identified to be the parents of the deceased by SI Ajay Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by them. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that the antecedents of petitioner are clean and the trial of this case has not effectively begun.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that respondents No. 2 & 3 have been duly compensated to the tune of Rs. 3 lac and today, they have received the balance settled amount Rs. 1 lac. Respondents No. 2 and 3, present in the Court, submit that the incident in question was purely accidental and so, they do not hold petitioner wholly responsible for the incident in question. They further submit that they have been duly compensated by petitioner. They affirm the contents of their affidavit filed in support of this petition and submit that the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.

4. In ‘Gian Singh v. State of Punjab’ (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:--

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:--

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants whil