Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040010502023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./142/2023 Treenanjan Bhardwai Phukan and 2 Ors. S/o Lt. R. N Phukan, Permanent R/o Kakoti Howli Apartment, Pub Sarania, Road Opp. 4th Rajgarh Pub Sarania Bye Lane, Chandmari, Gauhati, Assam. 2: Tanyo Panyang Age: Occupation : S/o Tagir Panyang Present R/o Mikong Village PO Bilat Dist. East Siang (AP) 3: Taken Talom Age: Occupation : S/o Taben Talom Present Address Boleng Village PO/PS Boleng Dist. Siang VERSUS THE STATE OF AP Represented through the Public Prosecutor. Advocate for the Petitioner : Teto Taba, C Ering,B Taba Advocate for the Respondent : D. Loyi, P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 08-09-2025 Heard Mr. T. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is a joint application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 by the accused, informant/father of the deceased and the victim, praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of the G.R. Case No. 17/2012 arising out of Ruksin P.S. Case No. 17/2012 under Sections 338/279/227/304(A) of the IPC. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is the accused, petitioner No. 2 is the informant/father of the deceased victim and the petitioner No. 3 is another victim in the above Ruksin P.S. Case No. 17/2012. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.11.2012, a written FIR was lodge by the petitioner No. 2 against the petitioner No. 1 regarding vehicular accident and for commission of offence under Section 279/338/427 of the IPC. Accordingly, the Ruksin P.S. Case No. 17/2012 was registered under the aforementioned sections of the IPC. After the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted. In the meantime, the son of the petitioner No. 2, who was under treatment, expired, and accordingly, Section 304(A) of the IPC was added while filing the charge-sheet against the accused. 5. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. 6. Mr. T. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that immediately Page No.# 3/4 after the accident, the matter was settled between the parties on 22.12.2012 before the Kebang. Thereafter, when a summons was issued to the accused by the Court, the matter was again settled on 30.01.2013, and the same was finally reduced into writing on 14.06.2023. The settlement agreement was signed on 15.06.2023/16.06.2023 whereby, the victim’s family was adequately compensated by the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) as a full and final compensation, which include the medical and funeral expenses. The informant who is also the father of the deceased victim has expressly stated in the settlement deed that since he has received the full and final compensation for accidental death of his son, he has no further grievance against the accused, and does not wish to pursue with the matter any further. 7. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State fairly submits that in view of the settlement deed entered into between the parties and since the parties have resolved the dispute, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record. 9. The present case arose out of the motor vehicle accident wherein, the petitioner No. 3 sustained injuries and the son of the petitioner No. 2, later on, expired. However, immediately after the accident, the matter was resolved between the parties, whereby the petitioner No. 1/the accused had adequately compensated the victims of the accident by paying a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) as full and final compensation for the death of the deceased and for treatment of injured person. The matter appears private in nature involving the individuals and does not affect the society at large. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be a remote possibility of Page No.# 4/4 conviction. In that view of the matter, the further proceeding against the accused person would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of law. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of power under 482 of the Code can quashed the criminal proceeding even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society on the ground that there is settlement/comprise between the victim and the offender. 11. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in [(2014) 6 SCC 466], as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (supra), where the Apex Court has permitted quashing of proceedings even in non- compoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C ( now Section 528 of BNSS), could be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 17/2012 arising out of Ruksin P.S. Case No. 17/2012 under Sections 338/279/227/304(A), pending before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, against the accused, namely, Shri Treenanjan Bhardwaj, is hereby set aside in the interest of justice. 13. With the above, this petition stands disposed JUDGE Comparing Assistant