Court rules compromise between accused and victim's heirs impermissible under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
In a significant ruling, the Meghalaya High Court has refused to quash an FIR in a case involving death by rash and negligent driving, emphasizing that such compromises undermine public confidence in the justice system. The case, Flamingstar Sohkhlet v. State of Meghalaya, involved a petition to quash an FIR filed against Sohkhlet for causing the death of Kennystar Lyndem due to rash driving. The petitioner argued that a settlement had been reached with the victim’s legal heirs, who consented to the quashing of the FIR.
Presiding Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere ruled that quashing the FIR based on such a settlement was impermissible. The court highlighted that the primary victim, being deceased, cannot consent to the settlement, and that the justice system should not be compromised by financial settlements. The judgment clarifies the distinction between the High Court's power to quash proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and compounding of offences under Section 359 of the same act.
The court underscored that the inherent powers of the High Court, while broad, must be exercised with caution, especially in cases involving serious offences that impact society. The ruling reiterated the Supreme Court's stance that offences like rash and negligent driving are not merely private disputes but have serious societal implications.
This decision is expected to reinforce the principles of justice by affirming that the criminal justice system cannot be influenced by financial settlements, especially in cases where the victim cannot voice consent. The Meghalaya High Court’s judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in maintaining public trust in legal processes.
Bottom Line:
High Court's power to quash FIR under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 CrPC) is distinct from compounding under Section 359 of BNSS (earlier Section 320 CrPC). Quashing of FIR under Section 106(1) BNSS (earlier Section 304A IPC) based on compromise between accused and legal heirs of deceased is impermissible as the deceased, being the primary victim, cannot give consent for settlement.
Statutory provision(s): Section 528, Section 106(1), Section 359 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Flamingstar Sohkhlet v. State of Meghalaya, (Meghalaya) : Law Finder Doc id # 2853605
