FIR for negligent driving causing death may be quashed on settlement absent evidence of rashness or negligence.

On 22 March 2024, Sureshbhai Rameshbhai Vanjara was allegedly struck by a four-wheeler bearing registration No. UK-06-AF-3777 while crossing the road near Airport Circle, Ahmedabad.

He succumbed to his injuries during treatment on 23 March 2024.

The deceased’s brother lodged FIR No. 11191057240103 of 2024 at G-Traffic Police Station, Ahmedabad City, alleging offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC and Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and Criminal Case No. 19749 of 2025 was pending before the 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad City.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant and the complainant entered into a settlement for ₹4,00,000, and the complainant and the deceased’s widow filed affidavits consenting to quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

No evidence had been recorded in the criminal case.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC and Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act could be quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement and the consent affidavits of the complainant and the deceased’s widow.

2. Whether, independently of the settlement, the available material disclosed sufficient prima facie proof of the rash or negligent driving required to sustain the alleged offences, particularly Section 304A of the IPC.

The Court applied the principles governing exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice, while examining the effect of a voluntary settlement in a criminal proceeding.

It considered Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC, which require proof of a rash or negligent act, with Section 304A specifically requiring that such act caused death without amounting to culpable homicide.

The Court also considered Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, concerning statutory violations relating to vehicle use and dangerous driving.

Although the offences were not treated as purely private disputes merely because of the settlement, the Court examined the case on its merits, particularly whether rashness or negligence was capable of being established on the material available.

The Court noted that the complainant, who was the deceased’s brother, and the deceased’s widow had voluntarily consented to the settlement and had no objection to quashing the proceedings.

Since the matter involved loss of human life, the Court did not rely solely on the compromise and examined the evidentiary position.

The alleged offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC all depended upon proof of rashness or negligence.

The charge-sheet relied principally on statements of police personnel, an FSL officer, an AMTS supervisor and the post-mortem doctor, while no witness had yet been examined at trial.

The Court called for the vehicle-speed report to assess whether the applicant had been driving rashly or negligently; the learned APP stated that no such report had been obtained.

In the absence of material adequately demonstrating the requisite rashness or negligence, and in view of the voluntary settlement and compensation, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

It allowed the application and quashed FIR No. 11191057240103 of 2024 dated 23 March 2024 registered at G-Traffic Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC and Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

All consequential proceedings, including Criminal Case No. 19749 of 2025, were quashed and set aside.

Rule was made absolute.