Uttarakhand HC Quashes Bus Driver’s Case Over Fatal Collision After Deceased Man’s Son Settles

In brief

The question

Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 106(1) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, could be quashed on the basis of the parties’ compromise, despite the State’s objection that the offences were non-compoundable.

The court held

The Court allowed the compounding application and quashed the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 18893 of 2026 under Sections 106(1) and 281 of the BNS, pending before the 1st ACJM, Dehradun, qua the applicant.

It also directed

The application was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The applicant sought to quash the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order, and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 18893 of 2026, arising from an FIR alleging that a bus driven by him struck and killed the complainant’s father at Dehradun ISBT.

¶ 4–5

The applicant submitted that there was no eyewitness to establish rash or negligent driving.

¶ 6

The complainant and applicant filed affidavits recording an amicable settlement and appeared before the Court; the complainant stated that he did not wish to pursue the proceedings. The State objected that the offences were non-compoundable.

¶ 7–11

02Issues

i.Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 106(1) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, could be quashed on the basis of the parties’ compromise, despite the State’s objection that the offences were non-compoundable.

¶ 11–14

ii.Whether, in light of the settlement and the circumstances stated before the Court, continuation of the proceedings would serve a useful purpose.

¶ 6, 10, 13–14

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 106(1) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under which the applicant faced prosecution.

¶ 4, 14

It relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, and the broader principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings following a compromise where the prospect of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation would cause prejudice or injustice.

¶ 12–13

The judgment described this relief as permitting the offences to be compounded.

¶ 14

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 106 Section 281

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the parties had settled the dispute, that the complainant did not wish to continue the prosecution, and that the applicant had asserted there was no eyewitness to the alleged rash and negligent driving.

¶ 6, 8–10

Although the State objected that the offences were non-compoundable, the Court relied on B.S. Joshi and the principle permitting quashing where a compromise makes conviction remote and continuation of proceedings unjustified.

¶ 11–13

It therefore accepted the compromise and granted relief to the applicant.

¶ 14