Shillong: The Meghalaya High Court, in a landmark judgement, observed that a person accused of causing death due to reckless driving cannot reach a settlement with the victim’s family and claim pardon.
The court observed that the “justice system” is not a “purchasable commodity”, while dismissing the plea of a man seeking to quash criminal proceedings for rash and negligent driving.
The bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere was hearing the plea of a man who sought relief on the premise that he had settled the case with the legal heirs of the victim, as reported by The Indian Express.
“The criminal justice system is not a purchasable commodity,” the Court observed, while highlighting that in cases of death, the “real victim” is the deceased, who is no longer capable of giving consent to a settlement.
There are serious public wrongs and where the society as a whole has a stake, the justice delivery system cannot be put at naught by the accused, only because of his/her financial capacity/position in society, Chief Justice Dere said.
“There cannot be misplaced sympathy, based on a settlement between the legal heirs of the deceased and the accused,” the Court observed, highlighting the public confidence in the justice delivery system.
The matter dates back to March 18, 2025, when the petitioner was driving a vehicle that allegedly veered onto the wrong side of the road in East Khasi Hills, colliding with a scooter driven by the victim. The victim sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to them.
Following an investigation, the Rynjah Police Station filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 106(1) (causing death by negligence, imprisonment for 5 years and fine), 125(b) (act endangering life or personal safety of others), and 281 (rash driving or riding on a public way) of the BNS.
The petitioner settled with the wife and the mother of the victim during the pendency of proceedings before the trial court. The family then filed affidavits stating they had no objection to quashing the FIR, leading the petitioner to approach the high court.
If faith in the public justice delivery system is to be maintained, any compromise between the accused and the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased under Section 106(1) (causing death by negligence) of BNS cannot be sustained.
If such a compromise is permitted on the ground of mutual accord, the same would not only undermine the public confidence in the justice delivery system but would also ultimately shatter the faith of the public in the judicial system, it was observed.
