Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040012072024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./138/2024 Biswajeet Pangyok and 3 Ors Son of Shri Nirmal Pangyok, Deobeel Village, PO Namsai, District Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Ramesh Tamang Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Pemba Sangbo Tamang Malek village PO Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Lok Bdr Lohar Age: Occupation : Son of Manbir Lohar Malek Village PO Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh 4: Kaji Tamang Age: Occupation : Son of Bal Bahadur Tamang Malek Village PO Roing Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Page No.# 2/7 The State of AP through the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Debo K Deori, Epra Melo Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 27-02-2025 Heard Mr. D.K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned P.P. for the State. 2. This is a petition filed under section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNNS), 2023 seeking direction for quashing GR No.46/2024, arising out of Roing P.S. Case No.36/2024 under section281/106(1) of the BNSS, 2023 pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roing. 3. The petitioner No.1 Biswajeet Pangyok is the acused; the petitioner No.2 Shri Ramesh Tamang; the etitioner No.3 Shri Lok Bdr Lohar and petitioner No.4 Shri Kaji Tamang are informants in the above G.R Case No.46/2024 arising out of Roing P.S. Case No.36/2024 under section281/106(1) of the BNSS, 2023. 4. The case of the petitioners in brief is that on 21.8.2024, the petitioner Nos.2,3 and 4 lodged a written FIR before the Officer-in-Charge Roing Police station, Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh informing that at around 2.00 PM, a vehicle bearing registration No.AR Page No.# 3/7 20A 3314 hit three people namely, Dig Bdr Lohar, Antari Goley and Palmu Tamang at Malek Highway road near 8KM where all three people died on the spot at the location. 5. Based on the above written FIR, a case was registered being Roing P.S. Case No.36/2024 under section281/106(1) of the BNSS, 2023 and investigated into. Investigation reveals that that on 21.8.2024, the accused petitioner No.1 after dropping his father-in-law by his private Car Hyundai Venue was returning home from Basar via Pasighat, on the way, he felt drowsy and slept unintentionally due to tiredness from long journey. He was woken up by a thud sound and lost control over the steering of the vehicle and unfortunately hit three people resulting their death. Realizing his mistake the accused surrendered himself before the O.C Namsai P.S. Thus, after completion of the investigation, the I.O found prima facie case against the accused petitioner No.1 and file charge-sheet for offence under section 281/106(1) BNSS, 2023. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident took place due to unintentional mistake of the accused petitioner No.1 and therefore he had surrendered himself before the Police with a view to cooperate with the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the accident, the accused petitioner had paid a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs each to each of the family of the deceased respectively and thus, the matter was amicably settled between the parties. The parties have also executed a compromise deed dated 29.8.2024. Thereafter, having mutually settled the matter, the petitioners have informed the I.O of the case with a copy of the compromise deed of settlement. However, the I.O carried out with the investigation and Page No.# 4/7 submitted the case into charge-sheet and since the offence are non compoundable, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate has no power to compound the non compoundable case hence, this petition seeking quashing of the proceeding of the above case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the vehicle of the accused petitioner No.1 hit the deceased, however, realizing that the families of the deceased would immediately require monetary assistance, the accused petitioner No.1 has paid Rs. 5 lakhs each to the family of all the deceased person respectively. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that besides the monetary compensation paid to the families of the deceased person, the accused petitioner also has volunteered to extend all assistance to the families of the deceased persons to claim compensation for death of the deceased person before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Additionally, the petitioners counsel submits that on such payment and assistance extended to the families of the deceased persons, the informant/petitioner Nos.2,3 and 4 have forgiven the accused petitioner No.1 and have expressed that they do not have any further grievances against the accused petitioner No.1 and thus, they do not want to pursue with the matter before the Court against the accused. The informants has also undertaken that they would co-operate with the accused petitioner No.1 for closing of the pending case before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roing, against the accused petitioner No.1. 8. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the case involves with the accident where the accused petitioner has hit the deceased causing their death, the said offence is against the individual vehicle owner and the Page No.# 5/7 Driver of the offending vehicle and the victims and does not effect the society at large. Moreover, the informant/petitioner Nos.2,3 and 4 have already forgiven the accused petitioner No.1 and the informants do not have any more grievances against the accused petitioner No.1 and do not want to pursue with the matter any further against the accused, under the circumstances, the proceeding against the accused petitioner No.1 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roing, would cause unnecessary harassment to the parties. Hence, prays for setting aside the proceeding. 9. Mr. D. Loyi, learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State respondent submits that although the case was registered against the accused petitioner No.1 under section 281/106(1) BNSS, 2003, however, from the record, it appears that the said accident occurred accidentally on the way back from Basar via Pasighat and that the accused felt sleepy due to long journey and it was not intentional to hit the deceased persons. As such the accident took place due to unintentional mistake of the accused petitioner No.1. Moreover, the record shows that the matter has amicably been settled amongst the parties and the victims had been adequately compensated for the death of the deceased and executed a compromise deed of settlement dated 29.8.2024. The learned P.P. further submits that since the matter has been amicably settled and since the informants in the above case do not want to pursue with the matter, he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed by this Court in exercise of inherent power provided under section 528 BNSS, 2023. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the records produced before this Court. Page No.# 6/7 11. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident occurred not due to unintentional mistake of the owner and Driver of the offending vehicle coming from Basar to Namsai. And due to the long and tedious journey, the accused petitioner no.1 felt sleepy while driving and hit three persons resulting their death. The record reveals that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties where the accused/applicant has paid compensation of Rs.5 lakhs each to the families of the deceased persons and has also undertaken to cooperate and extend all assistance to the families of the deceased in filing compensation application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 12. Additionally, the above case appears to be one that does not effect the society at large, and since the parties have amicably settled by executing a settlement of compromise deed dated 29.8.2024, wherein the petitioner Nos. 2,3 and 4 have stated that they do not have any further grievances against the accused petitioner Nos.1 and therefore, they do not want to pursue with the case against the accused petitioner No.1 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roing. Under the circumstances, it appears that continuation of the case before the trial Court would cause hardship to all the parties and waste of precious judicial time and thus, it would only result in futile exercise. 13. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners fully supported by the learned P.P. for the State respondents, I do not find cogent ground to continue with the proceeding of the case as there is hardly any chance of the accused’s conviction. Further, in such a circumstances, it is now settled that even for the offence alleged against the accused are not compoundable offence, the High Court or the Apex Page No.# 7/7 Court in exercise of inherent powers may intercept the pending criminal proceeding. In this regard, there are catena of cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. However, this Court may gainfully place reliance on the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Gopal vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2021) SCC online 384. 14. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court and since the case has been amicably settled amongst the parties, inter se, this Court is of the considered opinion that the pending proceeding GR No.46/2024, arising out of Roing P.S. Case No.36/2024, under section281/106(1) of the BNSS, 2023 pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roing, against the accused petitioner Shri Biswajeet Pangyok is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. With the above observation, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. 16. Return the LCR immediately. JUDGE Comparing Assistant