In a significant legal development of Santosh v/s State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Another, the Delhi High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a petitioner involved in a road accident case, citing a settlement between the parties. The case involved an accident that resulted in the death of an individual, with the accused initially charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Motor Vehicles Act. The decision to quash the FIR came after a mutual agreement between the petitioner and the victim's family, following mediation.
Background of the Case:
The FIR in question was registered under sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety), and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC, along with sections 146 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, after an accident occurred near Sainik Farms, Saket, New Delhi, on February 5, 2020. The victim, Mr. Beer Singh, was injured in the accident and later succumbed to his injuries on February 12, 2020, prompting the addition of Section 304A (death by negligence) to the charges.
Subsequently, the police filed the chargesheet and the matter was registered as Criminal Case No. 7351/2021. Additionally, the victim’s family, represented by the wife of the deceased, filed a claim petition under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation for the loss.
The Settlement:
Amid the ongoing proceedings, the parties decided to resolve their differences through mediation. The Mediation Center at Saket Courts facilitated a settlement between the parties on November 1, 2023. As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner, a young man aged 25, agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000 to the family of the deceased. The payment was made in two parts: Rs. 1,00,000 was transferred online, while the remaining Rs. 3,00,000 was handed over via demand draft. The compensation was paid to the joint account of the wife of the deceased, Ms. Pramila, and her son, Mr. Manish Rawat.
The learned Presiding Officer of the MACT, Saket Court, took note of the settlement and disposed of the claim petition on January 12, 2024, confirming that the matter had been resolved amicably.
The Role of the Court in Quashing the FIR:
Following the settlement, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of the FIR and all criminal proceedings emanating from it. The respondent (the wife of the deceased) also filed an affidavit supporting the petitioner's request to quash the charges, stating that she had no objections to the quashing of the FIR. In her affidavit, she confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, without any coercion or undue influence.
In such cases, courts exercise their discretion to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The decision to quash an FIR for non-compoundable offences like those in this case, which stem from a personal dispute, depends on the nature of the offence and whether it significantly impacts public interest or the society at large.
The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, had set a precedent by observing that powers under Section 482 of CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS) could be exercised to quash proceedings in cases involving non-compoundable offences when the dispute arises from a private issue, and the compromise is voluntary and amicable. In such instances, if the victim has settled the matter willingly, without pressure or coercion, the court may exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings.
Legal Precedents and Judicial Reasoning:
In Ramgopal and Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), the Supreme Court further emphasized that quashing criminal proceedings in cases of non-compoundable offences should be considered when the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and does not harm the public interest.
In the present case, the Court noted that the wife of the deceased, who was the complainant in the case, had freely consented to the settlement. The Court also took into account the fact that she had no objection to the quashing of the FIR, as expressed in her supporting affidavit. Additionally, the petitioner’s compliance with the settlement terms, including full payment of the agreed compensation, played a crucial role in the Court’s decision.
The Court also highlighted the absence of any allegations from the respondent regarding undue influence or coercion by the petitioner or any party related to him, further strengthening the case for quashing the proceedings.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court, after a thorough examination of the facts, the settlement agreement, and the supporting affidavits, concluded that the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner could be quashed in the interest of justice. The case exemplifies the legal principle that when parties reach a fair and voluntary settlement, the criminal justice system can take a lenient view, especially when the offences involved are non-compoundable but do not have a significant impact on societal interests.
Thus, in light of the settlement and the legal precedents, the Court exercised its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash FIR No. 48/2020 and all subsequent proceedings, bringing the matter to a close.
Section 297., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 304A., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 337., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 528, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
