Shillong, Feb 20: A landmark judgement was delivered earlier this month by the Meghalaya High Court wherein it found that a compromise cannot be reached between the perpetrator and the victim’s heirs in a fatal road traffic accident.
Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere ruled against the plea of a man who sought to quash the case against him after he had reached an understanding with his victim’s legal heirs.
Compromises in road traffic accidents are a common occurrence in Meghalaya and other parts of India, where, to avoid long-drawn out legal proceedings, the victim and perpetrator come to an understanding (usually involving the recompense of expenses incurred in the accident). Such compromises are even often encouraged by police.
In the case at hand, the perpetrator veered off the road after losing control of his vehicle and crashed into a two-wheeler coming from the opposite direction on March 18, 2025. The two-wheeler rider, Kennystar Lyndem, died of his injuries.
While his case was pending, the perpetrator reached an agreement with Lyndem’s mother and wife and they subsequently filed affidavits where they expressed no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
In dismissing the petition to quash the case, Justice Dere said, “The criminal justice system is not a purchasable commodity.”
In cases of death, she added, the real victim is the deceased who can no longer give consent to the settlement.
“In fact, 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,” Justice Dere said.
As the perpetrator has been charged under Sec 106(1) of the BNS – causing death by rash or negligent acts not amounting to culpable homicide – the crime cannot be considered as a private one between two parties but one against society.
Quashing such a case would set a dangerous precedent where those offenders who are in financially strong positions would get off scot-free and give undue advantage to well-off persons against those of weaker economic backgrounds.
