IMPORTANT POINT
The court can exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on a bona fide settlement between the parties, considering the nature of the offence and the conduct of the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner No 1 is a police constable serving in the Meghalaya Police and presently posted at SF-10 Unit Headquarter, Shillong.

2. The Petitioner No 2 is the Complainant who has lodged an FIR on 20.06.2020 at the Sadar Police Station,Shillong which was registered as Sadar P.S.Case No 142(6) OF 2020 under sections 279/337/338/304(A) IPC bringing to the notice of the police the fact about the occurrence of a motor accident which took place on 17.06.2020 near Delhi Mistan Bhandar, Police Bazaar, Shillong in which his father was dashed by the Scooty of the Petitioner No 1 and on being referred to NEIGHRIMS he succumbed to his injuries on 20.06.2020.

3. That the Petitioner No 1 and the Petitioner No 2 have decided to settle the matter outside court and consequently, an Agreement was drawn up between the parties, one of the terms being that the Petitioner No 1 would compensate the Petitioner No 2 for the loss of life of his deceased father which was agreed at Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) and that the Petitioner No 2 would withdraw the said FIR filed and would not pursue the matter in court.

4. However, in the meantime, the Investigating Officer had filed the Charge Sheet on 06.11.2020 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong which matter was then registered as G.R. Case No 92(S) of 2020 and the same was endorsed to the Magistrate for trial. The Petitioner No. 1 then entered appearance before the court and was supplied with the copy of the charge sheet. However, the charge is yet to be framed against him in the said case.

5. It is further stated in the petition that since the case involving the Petitioner No 1 also includes sections 279 and 304(A) IPC which are non-compoundable, the Magistrate under section 320 Cr.P.C. has no jurisdiction to allow the compromise between the parties. Hence this instant petition.

6. Mr A.S. Siddique learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that since the Petitioners have already compromised therefore there is no futility in proceeding with the criminal case and as such, this is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the same. To support his argument, the case of “Avinash Chawla v. State & Anr” in CRL. M.C. No. 4942/2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi, and the case of “Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab” (2014) 6 SCC 466, at para 29, was cited.

7. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned GA on the other hand has submitted that since some of the sections involved in the said criminal case against the Petitioner No 1 are non-compoundable, therefore no compromise can be affected and as such, this application is liable to be rejected.

8. On appreciation of the submission made by the learned Counsels for the parties, the factual matrix being enumerated above, it appears that as far as the factum of the motor vehicle accident is concerned, there is no dispute that the parties have sorted the matter between themselves and the fact that the Petitioner No 1 has duly compensated the Petitioner No 2 for which the Petitioner No 2 is satisfied is also evident.

9. However, that the cause of the said motor vehicle accident has to be determined in the said criminal case proceeded against the Petitioner No 1, some of the offences charged against him being non-bailable and non-compoundable, the question arise as to whether this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the said proceedings in the light of the compromise made between the parties.

10. Section 482 Cr.PC contemplate the situation where inherent power is vested in the High Court in respect of the following: -

(i) To give effect to any order under the Cr.PC;

(ii) To prevent abuse of the process of any court; and

(iii) To secure the ends of justice.

11. In the context of the case in hand when the question of settlement between the parties is to be examined as to whether the same can have a bearing on the proceedings of the criminal case against one of th