Section 482 Cr.PC is exercised to secure ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court: High Court Of Meghalaya

Serial No. 02 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. Petn. No.321 Date of Decision: 01.10.2021 Shri Dapyooki Dkhar & Anr State of Meghalaya & Anr. Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh Judge For the Petitioner Appellant(s) For the Respondent(s) i) Whether approved for reporting in Law journals etc.: Mr. A.S.Siddique Adv. Mr H. Kharmih. GA. ii) Whether approved for publication in press: The Petitioner No 1 is a police constable serving in the Meghalaya Police and presently posted at SF 10 Unit Headquarter Shillong. 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. 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 ₹ 4 00 000 and that the Petitioner No 2 would withdraw the said FIR filed and would not pursue the matter in 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. 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”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. 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. 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: 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. 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 the parties to the settlement it would be appropriate to look into the relevant authorities in this regard particularly decisions by the Supreme Court. In the case of “Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab” 6 SCC 466 at para 29 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles which are a guidance for the High Court to deal with matters while exercising powers u s 482 Cr.PC. In the said paragraph the Supreme Court has held that the High Court u s 482 of the Code has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in cases which are not compoundable where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However this power has to be exercise to secure ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court. In the case of “Ramgopal & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh” in Criminal Appeal No 14812 in an order dated 29.09.2021 the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue as to whether non compoundable offences can be compounded by a Court or in the alternative whether the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P.C. could quash non compoundable offences based on a compromise settlement arrived at between the accused and the victim complainant and if so under what circumstances has referred to relevant authorities viz the case of “State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors”(2019) 5 SCC 688 where at para 5 of the same it is held as under: “5. While exercising the power under section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society on the ground that there is a settlement compromise between the victim and the offender the High Court is required to consider the antecedent of the accused the conduct of the accused namely whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc” In the same case i.e at paragraph 12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “ 12. The High Court therefore having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicable settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure that the felony even if goes unpunished does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.” 15. The case of “Avinash Chawla” relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner has been duly covered by the above authorities cited which deals with similar proposition of law. It is generally the case in a motor vehicle accident that seeking payment of compensation would satisfy the offending party and once satisfied they are not interested in continuing with prosecution in the criminal proceeding. The agreement and settlement between the parties as regard the compensation for the death of the victim who is the father of the Petitioner No. 2 has settled the matter as far as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned and as such it could be assumed that the Petitioner No. 1 has paid the penalty for his action akin to the principle of plea bargaining. 17. The factual situation involving the Petitioners herein would indicate that the antecedent of the accused Petitioner No.1 and his conduct particularly the fact that he had paid ₹ 4 00 000 as compensation to the family of the victim is proof enough that the settlement between the parties is made bonafide. 18. This being the case on the strength of the authorities cited this Court is of the considered opinion that the application of the Petitioners is entitled to be allowed. In view of the above the dispute between the parties having been resolved it would be futile to proceed with the said criminal proceeding against the Petitioner No. 1. 20. Accordingly the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 92(s) of 2020 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Shillong Smti D.M.K. Shadap is hereby quashed and bail bond executed if any stands discharged against the accused therein. 21. Matter is hereby disposed. No cost. Judge “N. Swer Stenographer” 

Summary: Normally in a motor vehicle accident case, seeking payment of compensation would satisfy the offending party (victim), and when they are satisfied they are not interested to continue with prosecution in the criminal proceeding. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court Of Meghalaya before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh in the matter of  Shri Dapyooki Dkhar &amp; Anr Vs. State of Meghalaya &amp; Anr [Crl. Petn. No.34 of 2021].  The facts of the case are associated with Petitioner no. 2 who was the complainant, who had lodged an FIR under sections 279/337/338/304(A) IPC at the Sadar Police Station, Shillong dated 20.06.2020. Other Petitioner no.1 was the police constable who was serving in the Meghalaya Police. By lodging the FIR, petitioner no.2 brought the attention of the police regarding a motor accident that took place on 17.06.2020 near Delhi Mistan Bhandar, Police Bazaar, Shillong. In the said accident the father of petitioner no.2 got hit by Petitioner no.1 and that his father couldn’t survive due to injuries and expired on 20.06.2020. It was decided by both the petitioners to settle the matter out of the court and according to the terms Petitioner no1 agreed to compensate by giving Rs 4lacs and Petitioner no 2 would withdraw the FIR.  In the meantime, the charge sheet was already filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong by the Investigating Officer dated 06.11.2020. Since petitioner no 1 was charged with sections 279 and 304(A) IPC which are non-compoundable, the magistrate has no jurisdiction to allow the compromise between the parties under section 320 of Cr.P.C. Learned advocate, Mr. A.S. Siddique representing the petitioners, contended that it was pointless to proceed with the already compromised case and that the case is suitable for the court to quash it by exercising its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Court expressed that it was better to look for relevant authorities and decisions by the supreme court to find out if the case can be examined when both parties compromised and decided to settle outside the court and. The Hon’ble Court, after considering all the facts stated that “This being the case, on the strength of the authorities cited, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application of the Petitioners is entitled to be allowed. In view of the above, the dispute between the parties having been resolved, it would be futile to proceed with the said criminal proceeding against the Petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 92(s) of 2020 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong Smti D.M.K. Shadap is hereby quashed and bail bond executed if any stands discharged against the accused therein. Matter is hereby disposed.”