The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash criminal proceedings based on settlements between the parties and the nature of the offenses involved.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 6217/2023

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1637/2023 AND CRL.M.A. 6216/2023

3. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 769/2022, under Sections 279 IPC read with Section 337 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, (North), Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

4. Issue notice. Learned APP appears on advance notice, and accepts notice.

5. In brief, the facts of the case are that at around 10.30 pm, the Police Station Kotwali received a call with regard to an accident among 3-4 cars on the Carriage Way between Geeta Colony Flyover to Shanti Van and the PCR vehicle had taken the Driver of the Scooty, i.e., Mohit Nayyar (Respondent No. 4), his Wife Saloni Nayyar (Respondent No. 3) and another injured who was the driver of Wagon-R Taxi, i.e., Vijay Tyagi (Respondent No. 2) to the hospital. The driver of another car, Kia, i.e., Rachit Bansal and the driver of the other Wagon R, Rajat Dewan were present at the spot. It was further informed that the driver of the BMW car No. MP-14 BD-0730, Mr. Sunil Jain, (petitioner herein) was coming from the side of Geeta Colony towards Shanti Van, and he was driving in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner hit the Wagon R (Taxi) and the other car (make Kia), which in turn hit the scooty and other Wagon R respectively. As a result of this, the present FIR was registered.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been settled between the parties as the petitioner has compensated all the victims. It is further submitted that the respondents/injured have furnished their respective affidavits before the Investigating Agency along with their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stating therein that they do not intend to proceed with the present FIR.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in `Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab', (2012) 10 SCC 303 and the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in `Rohit Kapoor vs. State of Delhi & Anr.' in Crl.M.C. 542/2016 to contend that the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC is not compoundable but in the larger interest of the society and in order to maintain peace and harmony, the FIR under such Sections can be quashed.

8. Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are present in Court. They state that they have been compensated by the petitioner for the damages and they do not wish to pursue this case further and have no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed.

9. Learned APP for the State submits that chargesheet has been filed and all the victims have tendered their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein they have mentioned that they have been compensated and they do not intend to proceed with the present FIR. Thus, the State has no objection in case the present petition is allowed.

10. In the instant case, undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC is not compoundable, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is inclined to allow the present petition. This issue has been decided by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case titled as `Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another', (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 998 wherein held as under:

"61.......the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to q