Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040007322025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./97/2025 Rukma Handique and Anr Son of Shri Ratneswar Handique, a resident of Kakopathar, PO and PS Kakopathar, Tinsukia District, Assam 2: Smti Anima Chetry Age: Occupation : Wife of Late Kishan Jha a resident of Rockline Tezu PO and PS Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Sumit Chhetri, M Gogoi Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 11.06.2025 Heard Ms. M. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/7 2. This is a joint petition filed by two petitioners, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.32/2024, arising out of Tezu P.S. Case No.11/2024, under Sections 279/304A of the IPC, pending before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezu. 3. The petitioner No.1, Shri Rukma Handique is the accused, while the petitioner No.2 Smti Anima Chetry is the informant, who is the wife of the deceased in the aforesaid G.R. Case No.32/2024. 4. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident in which the husband of the petitioner No.2 informant died. On 05.02.2024, a written FIR was lodged by the informant/petitioner No.2 before the Officer-in-Charge, Tezu Police Station, informing that on 05.02.2024, at around 8.00 PM, while her husband was going out to the market to buy meat, he was hit by a car near Rockline, Tezu, as a result, her husband died on the spot. An FIR was registered as Tezu P.S. Case No.11/2024, under Sections 279/304A of the IPC and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, the Police submitted Charge-sheet against the accused/petitioner No.1 under Sections 279/304A of the IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the case, framed charge against the accused petitioner No.1 for the said offences. 5. However, during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. A settlement Deed has been executed on 12.02.2024. Under the settlement, the accused petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the family of the deceased as compensation which the informant has already received. The accused has also undertaken to Page No.# 3/7 bear the educational expenses of the deceased’s minor child upto Class XII. The Deed also contains that both the accused and the informant will jointly file petition for quashing of the case pending against the accused. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the dispute has been resolved amicably between the parties, the informant has no further grievance and does not wish to pursue the criminal case. Therefore, she has voluntarily joined in this petition for quashing of the criminal case against the accused. He further submits that under the circumstances, the continuation of the trial would serve no useful purpose, especially since the offence is not against society at large but arises out of an unfortunate accident. 7. Mr. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also submitted that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the informant petitioner No.2 after receipt of the compensation amount has agreed to co- operate with the accused petitioner No.1 for his acquittal, under such circumstances, there is hardly any chance for conviction of the accused. In view of the settlement and the nature of the offence, he has no objection in view of the settlement and the nature of the offence which occurred due to an unfortunate accident. 8. I have heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the records produced before this Court. 9. Though the Section 304A is a non-compoundable offence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in a catena of decisions held that the High Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now 528 BNSS, 2023) even in non- compoundable offences, if the offence is private in nature and the parties have amicably settled the dispute and according to the Court, it appears that the Page No.# 4/7 continuance of trial would serve no useful purpose. 10. The learned counsel for the parties has referred the following cases to be relevant: (i) Gian Sing V. State of Punjab, reported in (2012)10 SCC 303, in which it was held that the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 (now 528 BNSS) if the offence is not heinous or of serious nature and the settlement is genuine. (ii) Narinder Singh V. State of Punjab, reported in (2014)6 SCC 466, whereby it was held that quashing is permissible when the offence has no social impact and the victim has been compensated. (iii) Parbatibhai Aahir V. State of Bihar, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, whereby it is laid down guidelines for quashing on the basis of compromise and emphasized that such power must be exercised cautiously. (iv) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, the relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below: “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; Page No.# 5/7 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to Page No.# 6/7 consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” 11. In the present case, the accident, where the deceased died appears to be the result of rash and negligent driving, and not an intentional act. Considering the fact situation of the case, the parties have amicably resolved the matter, and adequate compensation has been paid to the family of the deceased. As a result, the informant has no further grievance against the accused. Furthermore, the dispute appears to be in between the parties, who are private individual and did not affect the society at large. Under such circumstance, it appears that continuation of the trial of the case in the Court would only cause hardship to both the parties and their families, and in such situation, it would be a wastage of precious judicial time, thus, it would only result in futile exercise. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find sufficient force and logic in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners which has received full support of the learned Addl. P.P for the State. Further, the submissions of the parties are being supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases. In such circumstances, it is now well settled that even if the offence alleged against the accused is non- compoundable offence, the High Court or the Apex Court in exercise of inherent powers may intersect the pending proceedings. 13. In view of the above facts and binding precedents, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met by quashing the proceedings. 14. Accordingly, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.32/2024, arising out of Tezu Page No.# 7/7 P.S. Case No.11/2024, under Sections 279/304A of the IPC, pending before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezu, against the accused Shri Rukma Handique, is hereby quashed. 15. With the above observation, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. 16. Return the Trial Court Record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant