Facts
On 22 February 2024, the petitioner’s vehicle was involved in an accident with Raj Singh, aged about 69, who was declared dead on arrival at hospital.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 3–5An FIR was registered at P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar under Sections 279 and 304A IPC; the resulting criminal case was pending before the JMFC, Dwarka Courts, for prosecution evidence.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 3–5The deceased’s legal heirs settled their MACT claim for ₹8,00,000 in full and final settlement and later executed a settlement deed with the petitioner.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6They confirmed the settlement was voluntary and stated they had no objection to quashing the FIR; the State also had no objection.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6; p. 4, paras. 7–10The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3Issues
Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 279/304A IPC on the basis of the parties’ settlement.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3; p. 4, paras. 12–13Whether quashing would be appropriate where the criminal proceedings arose from a fatal road accident but the deceased’s legal heirs had settled with the petitioner and consented to quashing.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 4–10Law Applied
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of court.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which recognises that criminal proceedings may be quashed following a settlement where continuing them would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice, or would amount to an abuse of process, and where ending the case would secure the ends of justice.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 11The FIR alleged offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3Reasoning
The Court noted that the deceased’s legal heirs had settled the MACT claim for ₹8,00,000 and had amicably resolved their dispute with the petitioner through a settlement deed.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 6–10The heirs confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, expressed no remaining grievance, and consented to quashing; the State raised no objection.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 6–10Applying the principle in Gian Singh, the Court concluded that, in light of the settlement and the parties’ free will, quashing the proceedings was in the interests of justice.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 11–12Holding
The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0074/2024, registered at P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar under Sections 279/304A IPC, together with all consequential proceedings.
Pending applications were also disposed of.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 15Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Indian Penal Code, 18601
Original Court PDF
NeerajvsState Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
