High Courts may quash non-compoundable accident prosecutions upon settlement where no overarching public interest is affected.

On 22 May 2021, respondent no. 2, Rajesh Kumar Singh, alleged that while riding his scooty near Max Hospital, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi, his vehicle was hit by a car owned and driven by the petitioner, Sandhya Jassal.

He sustained a left-knee fracture and was medically examined at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS.

FIR No. 0274/2021 was registered at PS Amar Colony under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.

The petitioner’s vehicle and documents were seized, she was arrested on 3 June 2021, and a chargesheet was subsequently filed under Sections 279 and 338 IPC before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts.

Respondent no. 2 also instituted MACT proceedings, which were settled through a Lok Adalat Award for ₹3,70,000 payable by the insurer.

During the criminal proceedings, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 22 August 2024, under which the petitioner agreed to pay respondent no. 2 ₹1,20,000 in full and final settlement; the amount was paid in instalments.

Respondent no. 2 confirmed before the High Court that he had received the entire settlement amount and had no further claim against the petitioner.

The State also expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash proceedings arising from non-compoundable offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the accused and the injured complainant.

Whether, in view of the settlement, the predominantly private nature of the dispute, and the remote likelihood of conviction, continuation of the FIR and criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process or defeat the ends of justice.

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., which empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of court, even where the alleged offence is non-compoundable.

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that proceedings may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in nature, the parties have genuinely settled their differences, and continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose, subject to the exclusion of heinous offences and offences affecting public interest.

Under Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, such power must be exercised sparingly after considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the voluntariness of the settlement, the likelihood of conviction, and whether continuation would cause injustice.

The Court also relied on Deepak Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1305, for the principle that quashing on settlement depends on the facts of each case and requires consideration of the offence’s impact on society.

The Court found that the allegations arose from a motor-vehicle accident causing personal bodily injury and did not involve murder, rape, dacoity, corruption, abuse of public office, or any other offence having an overriding public dimension.

Although Section 279 IPC was non-compoundable, the dispute was predominantly private and had been resolved through both the MACT settlement and the subsequent mediated settlement.

The petitioner had paid the agreed ₹1,20,000, and respondent no. 2 voluntarily confirmed receipt of the full amount and the absence of any further claim.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the possibility of conviction was remote and that continuing the prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose, thereby making quashing appropriate to secure the ends of justice.

FIR No. 0274/2021 dated 31 May 2021, registered at PS Amar Colony under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, together with the chargesheet and all proceedings arising from it, was quashed on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

The parties were directed to remain bound by the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22 August 2024, and the pending application was also disposed of.