- (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: - "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well - being of the society and 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, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard -and -fast category can be prescribed".
(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. In the present case, I find that there is direct allegation against the petitioner to have rashly and negligently driving a tractor and after dashing the deceased, the tractor even entered a hut. The negligent and rash driving of a vehicle by the driver is not an offence against the person wronged only, rather it is an offence against the society at large, endangering the life of any person of the society.
(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.;