Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040016452024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./206/2024 Lokam Rikam and 3 Ors Son of Late Lokam Kani, resident of Pachin Colony, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Lokam Riram Age: Occupation : Son of Late Lokam Kani resident of Pachin colony PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Milan Singh Sandhu Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Sukvinder Singh Sandhu resident of P Sector Raj Bhawan complex Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Sosar Punnung Age: Occupation : Son of Late Sosar Tapang resident of Pachin Colony PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Page No.# 2/8 The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Lissing Perme, A Perme,Signal Yirang,Wintet Sawin,William Yirang,Jumge Riram,Krishna Dubey Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 21-02-2025 Heard Mr. S. Yirang, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP for the State. 2. This is a joint petition filed by 4 petitioners under section 528 BNNS, 2023 for quashing and setting aside the GR No.476/17, arising out of Itanagar PS Case No.193/2017 u/s 279/338 IPC . 3. The petitioner No.1 Shri Lokam Rikam is the informant; the petitioner No.2 Lokam Riram is the victim and the petitioner No.3 Milan Singh Sandhu and petitioner No.4 Shri Sosar Punnung are the accused in GR No.476/17 arising out of Itanagar PS Case No.193/2017 u/s 279/338 IPC. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 4.8.2017 at around 5.30 PM a vehicular accident took place at 6 kilo Itanager. In this regard, two written FIRs were filed before the Officer-in-Chrage PS Itanagar; one by Shri Lokam Rikum, petitioner No.1 and the other by Shri Milan Singh Sandhu, the petitioner No.3. 5. The allegation in the first FIR filed by the petitioner No.1 is that, a motor cycle bearing no.AR/01K/0016 rode by Shri Milan Sing Sandhu, Page No.# 3/8 petitioner No.3 and Sosar Punnung, petitioner No.4 and the bike bearing no.AR/01J/2651 rode by the petitioner No.2 Lokam Riram met an accident where the petitioner No.2 Lokam Riram received serious injuries on his head and was immediately rushed to Heema hospital and he was subsequently evacuated to GNRC hospital Guwahati. 6. The second FIR lodged by the petitioner No.3 Milan Singh Sandhu alleged that while he was coming from Naharlagun in his bullet AR/01K/0016, a bike coming in full speed from Itanagar side at turning hit him with full force due to which he fell down and for some time he dosed off. 7. Basing on the above FIRs, the Police has registered the aforesaid Itanagar P.S No.193/2017 u/s 279/338 IPC. However, both the complaint and counter complaint were investigated together and submitted charge- sheet against Shri Milan Singh Sandhu, petitioner No.3 and Shri Sosar Punnung, petitioner No.4 for offence under section 279/338 IPC. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although there had been two FIRs lodged by both the riders of the bike but the accident occurred in the turning at 6 kilo point due to rash driving of both the riders of the bike, and although both the riders along with the pillion rider collided and fell on the ground; however, none of the victims had received any injuries except the petitioner No.2 Shri Lokan Riram who received some minor injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the accident took place due to the mistake of both the riders of the bike and none of the riders had received any serious injuries, the parties had sorted out the matter between them in the year 2017 itself immediately after the occurrence of the accident. However, since Page No.# 4/8 the case has already been registered, the Police had continued with their investigation and on completion of the investigation, the I.O of the case has submitted the case into charge-sheet against the accused petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 for offence under section 279/338 IPC. Thereafter, the learned Court of JMFC, Capital complex Yupia has taken cognizance of the offence against both the accused petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 for offence under section 279/338 IPC. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that although the case was compromised between the parties in the year 2017 itself; however, the matter was not informed to the I.O of the case resulting the I.O to file charge-sheet against the accused. However, after taking cognizance of the case, on receipt of summon from the Court, the parties had reduced their compromise agreement into writing by executing a deed of settlement dated 5.8.2024. The deed of settlement includes there was a complaint and counter complaint by both the parties for the accident occurred on 4.8.2017 resulting the Police registering the case and subsequently submitted into charge-sheet for offence under section 279/338 IPC against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. The deed of settlement also contained that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and both the parties do not have any grievance against each other and therefore, they do not want to pursue with the matter any further against each other. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the matter has been amicably settled between the parties by executing a deed of settlement dated 5.8.2024, however, since the offence registered against the accused petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are non compoundable offence and that the Court of JMFC has no power to Page No.# 5/8 compound the non compoundable case, the High Court of Apex Court in exercise of inherent power may intercept the pending criminal proceeding under section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Hence, this petition praying for quashing of the non compoundable offence. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case involves with allegation and counter allegation of rash and negligence driving of each other and the injuries caused to the pillion rider is minor and not serious injuries and the matter having been amicably settled between the parties and that the offence is against the individual bike owners and the person who has sustained minor injuries, therefore, the case does not effect the society at large. Moreover, the parties have already forgiven each other and they do not have any further grievances against each other. The victim, petitioner No.2 also does not want to pursue with the matter in the Court any further against the accused petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Under such circumstances, the proceeding of the case against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 pending before the learned Court of JFMC, Yupia would cause unnecessary harassment to the parties, hence prays for setting aside the proceeding. 11. Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State submits that although a complaint and counter complaint was received and registered against the accused petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 under section 279/338 IPC however, from the record, it appears that the said accident occurred at turning point at 6 mile, Itanagar, due to rash driving of both the motor cycles and the accident occurred due to the mistake of both the riders of motor cycle. Moreover, the record shows that the matter was amicably settled amongst the parties in the year 2017 itself. However, Page No.# 6/8 since the same was not informed to the Police, the I.O of the case carried out the investigation resulting submission of the charge-sheet against the accused petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 for offence under section 279/338 IPC. The record also reveals that after having come to know about the fact that the case has been taken into cognizance and summon have been issued against both the accused petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the parties have over and again executed the deed of settlement dated 5.8.2024 which was already settled in the year 2017. Since the mater has already been settled amicably and the offence registered against the accused petitioners is not a serious one, she has no objection if this Court passes appropriate orders in exercising the inherent power provided under section 528 BNSS, 2023. 12. Heard and considered the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the record produced before this Court. 13. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident took place at turning point 6 mile Itanagar due to rash and negligence driving of both the riders of the motor cycles coming from the opposite direction. Although the accident took place due to collision, none of them received any serious injuries except the petitioner No.2 who had received some minor injuries. The record also reveals that since the matter was not very serious, the parties had amicably settled immediately after the accident. However, as the parties did not informed the police regarding their amicable settlement, the I.O of the case carried out the investigation resulting into submission of the charge-sheet against the accused petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 for offence under section 279/338 IPC. During the pendency of the case, both the parties had over and again Page No.# 7/8 entered into amicable settlement by executing a deed of settlement, whereby parties have forgiven each other and also undertaken not to proceed further with the case before the Court. Additionally, the above case appears to be one that does not affect the society at large, and since the parties have amicably settled by executing settlement deed dated 5.8.2024 whereby the petitioners have expressed that they do not have any further grievances and therefore, they do not want to pursue the case against each other. 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. 14. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners supported by the learned State respondents, I do not find cogent ground to continue with the proceeding of the case. 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 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 Court. However, this Court may rely upon 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. 15. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court and since the case has been amicably been settled amongst the parties, inter se, this Court is of the considered opinion that the pending proceeding in GR No.476/17, arising out of Itanager PS Case No.193/2017 u/s 279/338 IPC Page No.# 8/8 needs to be quashed. Accordingly, GR No.476/17 arising out of Itanager PS Case No.193/2017 u/s 279/338 IPC pending before the Court of JMFC, Yupia against the accused petitioners Shri Milan Singh Sandhu and Shri Sosar Punnung is hereby quashed and set aside. 16. With the above observation, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. 17. Return the LCR immediately. JUDGE Comparing Assistant