Back
"Criminal Justice Isn't for Sale": Meghalaya HC Draws Line on Fatal Crash Settlements
In a stern rebuke to settling serious road accident cases out of court, the has dismissed a petition to for causing death by negligent driving. Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere ruled that offences under —equivalent to the erstwhile —cannot be buried via private compromises with a deceased victim's family, no matter how amicable. Delivered on , in Flamingstar Sohkhlet v. State of Meghalaya (Crl. Petn. No. 67 of 2025), the judgment underscores that such cases are , not personal bargains.
The Fatal Collision That Sparked the Legal Battle
The tragedy unfolded on , in East Khasi Hills near Shillong. Petitioner Flamingstar Sohkhlet was driving a Celerio car (ML05 X 9687) from Mawlai towards Tynring when he allegedly lost control, veered onto the wrong side, and smashed into an oncoming scooty (ML05 V 3065) ridden by Kennystar Lyndem. The victim suffered grievous injuries, was rushed to hospital, but succumbed soon after.
An FIR followed on , at Rynjah Police Station, charging Sohkhlet under Sections 106(1) (), 125(b) (), and 281 () of BNS. A charge-sheet was filed, and proceedings began as G.R. Case No. 44(A)/2025 before the . During trial pendency, Sohkhlet settled with the deceased's wife, Smti Rilangshisha Nongrum, and mother, Smti Arbina Ryndem, who filed . Invoking (mirroring ), he sought to kill the case.
The core question: Can High Courts quash proceedings under Section 106(1) BNS based solely on such family settlements?
Petitioner's Plea: Harmony Over Hardship
Sohkhlet's counsel, , argued the accident stemmed from an "unforeseen circumstance," not heinous intent. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), plus prior Meghalaya rulings, he stressed the offence's non-heinous nature. With victims' heirs consenting post-charge-sheet, continuing would and oppress the accused. Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 backed this, affirming full resolution.
The State, via , stayed largely silent, but the court delved deeper.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Precedents Seal the Fate
Chief Justice Dere dissected the law meticulously. Section 106(1) BNS punishes rash/negligent acts causing death (up to 5 years' jail), but it's under —no private fixes allowed.
Drawing from Gian Singh and Narinder Singh , the court affirmed High Courts' under are vast but cautious: quashing fits private/civil-flavored disputes, not heinous societal crimes like murder or rape. Echoing Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017), she noted road deaths shatter social fabric, per Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka (2012).
Critically,
Daxaben v. State of Gujarat
(2022) nixed quashing abetment-to-suicide FIRs (Section 306 IPC) via settlements, warning of
"financially strong offenders going scot-free."
On parity, negligent homicide isn't private—the deceased, true victim, can't consent.
The court invoked State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi (2015), lamenting surging accidents from rash drivers, urging stricter sentencing. 's Baldev Singh (2016) outright barred such quashings. Prior Meghalaya cases were distinguished as overlooking these Supremes.
As news reports highlighted, the bench declared: “Criminal justice system is not a purchasable commodity. Where there are serious public wrongs and where the society as a whole, has a stake, the justice delivery system cannot be put at naught by the accused, only because of his/her financial capacity/position in society.”
Echoes from the Bench: Unforgettable Lines
Key Observations from the judgment:
“ is not compoundable and as such, parties cannot settle the said offence through compromise either privately or with the permission of the court.”
“Proceedings under Section 106(1) of BNS... where the deceased is no more, cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise/settlement having arrived at between the accused and the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased.”
“If such a compromise is permitted... it will give the accused who may be powerful, influential, having clout of money, to happily settle the matter with the family of the deceased, who may not be financially well off.”
“Criminal justice system is not a purchasable commodity.”
No Escape Hatch: Petition Dismissed, Public Trust Upheld
The petition stands dismissed. The FIR and G.R. Case No. 44(A)/2025 proceed unhindered. This ruling fortifies deterrence against negligent driving amid India's road carnage, ensuring affluent drivers can't buy impunity. It signals to lower courts: family nods aren't enough for fatal negligence—society demands accountability. Future settlements in such cases face an uphill battle, prioritizing collective safety over individual peace.
