Settlement of accident claims in Lok Adalat justifies quashing criminal proceedings involving simple injuries.

The Petitioner (the sole accused) was charged under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC in S.T.C.No.1308 of 2023, stemming from an accident where his Honda Eon car allegedly collided with the defacto complainant's two-wheeler.

The prosecution alleged the Petitioner drove in a rash and negligent manner, causing "simple injuries" to the complainant.

During the pendency of the criminal case, the defacto complainant filed a motor accident claim (M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2023), which was subsequently settled in Lok Adalat on 13.12.2025 for an award of Rs. 60,000.

The Petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings, citing the settlement and discrepancies in the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report.

Whether the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.1308 of 2023 should be quashed under the court's inherent powers due to a settlement between the parties and the nature of the injuries.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

It considered the elements of Section 279 of the IPC regarding rash driving on a public way and Section 337 of the IPC regarding causing hurt by acts endangering the life or personal safety of others.

The court followed the legal principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed when a settlement is reached in a private dispute or when continuing the trial would serve "no useful purpose" because the complainant has been compensated and lacks interest in prosecution.

The Court observed that the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant were categorized as "simple" based on medical records.

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the complainant had already received compensation of Rs. 60,000 via a Lok Adalat settlement regarding the same incident.

Furthermore, the Court noted that despite being served with notice, the defacto complainant failed to appear in the High Court proceedings, either in person or through counsel.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that directing the Petitioner to undergo the "ordeal of trial" would be futile given the victim's compensation and subsequent non-appearance, which indicated that the dispute had been effectively resolved between the parties.

The Court held that in light of the Lok Adalat settlement and the simple nature of the injuries, continuing the criminal proceedings was unnecessary.

All connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.