Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. DIENGDOH, J.
Gary Synroplang Doonai Ranee – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
Crl.Petn. No. 71 of 2021
Decided on : 02-12-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 279/337/338 - Accident case - Rash driving or riding on a public way - Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others - Amicable settlement between parties - Quash of FIR - A motor vehicle accident had occurred involving petitioner and victim who was father of respondent No. 2, who, as a result of injuries sustained had soon expired - Parties have come to terms with each other and in this regard has executed compromise agreement notable features of which includes on conditional apology of petitioner to family of said victim and secondly, the undertaking given by petitioner to bear all the expenses related to the treatment of victim
Finding of the Court :
Compromise arrived at between themselves with a prayer to put an end to the proceedings, however the Trial Court not being competent to compound Section 279 IPC in view of Section 320 Cr.P.C., could not come to the aid of petitioner, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court - Inherent power, is well able to ensure that ends of justices secured or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court and accordingly, in suitable cases where a compromise or settlement is reached between parties, on the authority of the said guidelines and principles issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh (Supra).
Result: Application disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an application under Section 432 Cr.P.C preferred by the petitioner herein with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 12.10.2020 and the corresponding criminal Case being GR Case No.195 (A) 2020 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong.
2. Facts as could be ascertained from the body of this application is that on 10.10.2020 at around 7:00 P.M. at FCI Main Gate Mawlai, Shillong, the petitioner was riding a Scooty bearing Registration No. ML-05-R-9159 met with an accident in which Shri Rinelson Marbaniang, the father of respondent No. 2 was knocked down, as a result of which he suffered multiple injuries on his person. In this connection, an FIR dated 12.10.2020 was lodged before the officer-in-Charge, Sadar Traffic Branch, Shillong which was accordingly registered as Shillong Sadar PS Case No. 247(10)2020 under Section 279/337/338 IPC.
3. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case and on execution of a bail bond was enlarged on bail. The said Scooty as well as the related documents have all been seized by the police. The said Scooty was however released on zimma by the Investigating Officer on 14.10.2020.
4. In the meantime, the injured victim was hospitalized at Super Care Hospital for a period of 1(one) month and 13(thirteen) days after which he was discharged and with an advice to continue home treatment and to come for regular check up when required. However, the said victim expired on 20.12.2020.
5. It may be mentioned that the entire expenses incurred by the respondent No. 2 for the treatment of the said victim amounting to Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen lakhs) only was paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2, a receipt dated 26.04.2021 of which was issued to him.
6. Again, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have come to terms with each other and in this regard has executed compromise agreement dated 26.04.2021, notable features of which includes the on conditional apology of the petitioner to the family of the said victim and secondly, the undertaking given by the petitioner to bear all the expenses related to the treatment of the victim, which on calculation as stated above comes to Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen lakh) only.
7. The respondent No. 2 and the family of the victim on her part as Second Party to the said compromise deed, has agreed to withdraw the FIR dated 12.10.2020.
8. It may be pointed out that on investigation being completed in the said Shillong Sadar PS Case No. 247(10)2020 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC, the I/O has filed the final report and charge sheet No. 7/2020 dated 14.12.2020 and the matter was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong in GR Case No. 195(A) 2020.
9. Heard Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that facts as stated above being correct the proceedings in the said GR Case No. 195(A)2020 has started by issuance of a summons dated 04.03.2021 to the petitioner herein. In spite of the parties having settled the matter amicably, fructifying in the said compromise deed, it is noticed that those Sections 337 and 338 IPC are compoundable however, the Trial Court could not accept the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings upon compromise between the parties as Section 279 IPC is a non-compoundable section. Hence this petition.
10. Mr. Nongbri has further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of Punjab & Anr: (2014) 6 SCC 466 has laid down principles and guidelines for quashing of FIR on basis of settlement between the parties. Paragraph 29.2 of the same was referred to in this regard.
11. The learned counsel has also referred to a number of cases on the subject passed by this Court in the following cases: -
ii) Shri. Teilang Nongrum v. State of Meghalaya & Anr, High court of Meghal
Inherent power, is well able to ensure that ends of justices secured or to prevent abuse of process of any court and accordingly, in suitable cases where a compromise or settlement is reached between....
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.
The court quashed the FIR based on a compromise where the complainant exonerated the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of maintaining societal harmony.
The court can quash FIRs in non-compoundable offenses based on a valid settlement between parties, highlighting that continuation serves no useful purpose.
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 settlemen....
Compromise between parties in a criminal case can lead to quashing of FIR and proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.
A compromise between the parties can lead to the quashing of an FIR when the complainant withdraws allegations, indicating that prosecution would not succeed.
The main legal point established is that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings based on a genuine compromise between the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
