Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MEGH) 300
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
W. Diengdoh, J
Shri. Sunil Nair – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
Crl.Petn. No. 17 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A. Joshi, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. PP., Ms. I. Lyngwa, GA, Ms. N. Kharshemlang, Adv.
Inherent powers under Section 482 can quash FIR based on amicable settlement in cases not involving serious offences.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner involved in motor accident and amicably settled with complainant - A Compromise Deed executed reflecting mutual settlement - Court considers the settlement in quashing proceedings as criminal offences are not serious in nature. (Paras 5 and 9)
(B) While exercising inherent powers under Section 482, court distinguishes it from compounded offences under Section 320 - Such powers should be exercised sparingly and primarily to serve ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. (Paras 29, 29.1, 29.2 & 29.3)
Facts of the case:
Involved a motor accident on 04.12.2022; the FIR was lodged regarding the same with non-compoundable offences. Both parties reached a compromise and requested for FIR quashing.
Findings of Court:
The FIR dated 08.12.2022 was quashed as per settlement; the court finds the offences not heinous or serious.
Issues: The effectiveness of a compromise in quashing non-compoundable offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the principle that the inherent powers under Section 482 can apply even for non-compoundable offences if parties amicably settled, provided it meets the ends of justice.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of motor accident and fir lodged. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. compromise deed settled between parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. referencing prior case law for quashing proceedings. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's rationale regarding quashing non-serious offences. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. final decision to quash fir based on settlement. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. A. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the petitioner was involved in a case of Motor Accident which occurred on 04.12.2022 at about 6:45 PM or so at a place near St. Anthony’s College, Shillong.
2. The petitioner herein was riding a Motor Cycle bearing No. ML-05- R-5270 and has stated that on reaching the place of occurrence, had collided with a vehicle bearing No. ML-05-Y-4790. The driver of the said vehicle has then lodged an FIR dated 08.12.2022 with the Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Traffic Branch, Shillong resulting in registration of Sadar P.S. Case No. 268(12) of 2022 under Section 279/336/337 IPC read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The investigation into the matter is still going on, further submits the learned counsel.
3. The learned counsel has again submitted that the petitioner and the complainant have soon met and have amicably settled their dispute and to this effect, a Compromise Deed dated 21.12.2022 was also executed, wherein, it was mutually agreed that the complainant would no longer pursue with the prosecution of the case against the petitioner and that the Compromise Deed was executed with mutual consent on both sides without any pressure, force, coercion or undue influence.
4. In the light of the said Compromise Deed being executed between the parties, the petitioner has submitted that the FIR may be quashed, considering the fact that the same could not have been taken note of by a competent court and that the presence of Section 336 IPC being non- compoundable, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C could very well, for ends of justice, quash the proceedings to bring closure to the whole episode.
5. In support of his case, the petitioner has also cited the case of Shri. Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr: (2014) 6 SCC at para 29, 29.1, 29.2 & 29.3 and also the relevant judgment and orders passed by this Court in the case of Shri. Dapyooki Dkhar & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya in Criminal Petition No. 34 of 2021 order dated 01.10.2021 and also the case of Shri. Basandorlang Thangkhiew v. State of Meghalaya in Criminal Petition No. 11 of 2021 order dated 16.03.2021.
6. The respondent No. 3 who is also the complainant and the author of the said FIR has also appeared before this Court through Ms. N. Kharshemlang, learned counsel and has confirmed that the Compromise Deed so executed is a testimony of the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and differences and the respondent No. 3/complainant does not wish to pursue with the matter.
7. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP appearing on behalf of the State respondents No. 1 & 2 has fairly conceded that given the fact that the parties have settled their differences vide the said Compromise Deed, therefore, it would be futile for the criminal proceedings to proceed, inasmuch as, it may not result in any possible conviction. Another aspect pointed out in all the sections involved i.e. Section 279/336/337 IPC read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act would cumulatively, if convicted, carry the sentence of six months or so with or without fine. Therefore, the offence alleged are not heinous or serious in nature.
8. This Court has given due consideration to the submission made and apparently, the genesis of the matter is to a case of Motor Accident in which the parties could have resolved the same before a proper forum, perhaps before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
9. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the principal parties have settled their differences and dispute, the Compromise Deed so
