(1.) THE present interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner, in which the affidavit has also been sworn by the informant, stating that the case has since been compromised between the parties outside the Court and accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner, including the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court below as also the Judgment passed by the Appellate Court, be quashed. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 279 and 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that due to rash and negligent driving, the petitioner, who was the driver of the tractor, dashed the deceased and after dashing him, the vehicle also entered a hut. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has since been compromised between the parties and accordingly, even though the offence is not compoundable in nature, but in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Gain Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner, including the Judgment passed by both the Courts below, be quashed. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon paragraph -58 of the Judgment, which reads as follows: -
(2.) FROM bare perusal of the above Judgment, it is apparent that in appropriate cases, even though the cases are not compoundable in nature, but that does not create bar upon the exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the cases where the wrong is basically to the victim, may be quashed. The Apex Court had clearly stated that crimes which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well -being of the society, it is not safe to leave the crime -doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, and such cases should not be allowed to be settled.
(3.) IN the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the compromise entered between the petitioner and the informant in the present case cannot be entertained, as the present case relates to the offence against the society at large.