JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of FIR 152/2012 under section 279/337/304A IPC with PS Parliament Street on the ground that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased-It is stated that the petitioner is working in an organisation specialising in business process outsourcing (BPO) and also a graduate. He was driving a Maruti SX4 car and met with an accident with a truck at Firozshah Kotla Road, KG Marg Crossing, New Delhi. One of the labourers was sitting on top of the said truck, who fell on the road, died. It is also alleged that the petitioner had made the first calf to the police reporting the accident. The charge sheet is stated to have been filed before the trial court and the matter is now stated to be posted for 4th September, 2014. The respondents 2 to 8, the legal heirs of the deceased, are present in court and are identified by their counsel. Further documents of their identification have also been an­nexed to this petition. 2. Issue notice. 3. Notice is accepted by Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State and Mr. Pranesh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 to 8. 4. The counsel for the state submits that the matter has been settled between the parties. There is also no special allegation of drunken driving by the petitioner who is stated to be 29 years old. No useful purpose will be served where the legal heirs of the complainant are not supporting the prosecution any further Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant and also Narinder Singh and Ors. State of Punjab and Anr. 2014 (2) JCC 1460 : 2014(2) Crimes 27 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows: -- “31. State of Punjab and Anr. 2014 (2) JCC 1460 : 2014(2) Crimes 27 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows: -- “31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: (I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Sec­tion 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal, proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between them­selves. However, this power is to be ex­ercised sparingly and with caution. (II) When the parties have reached the settlement, and on that basis petition for (flashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, da-coity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely oh the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI) Offences under’ Section 307 Indian Penal Code would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 Indian Penal Code in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 Indian Penal Code. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical re­port in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Like­wise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the cir­cumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the of­fender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” And the judgment of this Court in Basara and Ors. v. State and Anr. in Crl. M.C. No. 6621-24/2006 decided on 3rd September, 2007, wherein it was,- inter alia, held as under : -- “14. .......Peace has been brought in the locality with the intervention of the well wishers of the locality. When there is peace in locality, there will be peace in the town. When there is peace in town, there will be peace in city. When there is peace in city, there will be peace in State. When there is peace in State, there will be peace in country..... When there is peace in locality, there will be peace in the town. When there is peace in town, there will be peace in city. When there is peace in city, there will be peace in State. When there is peace in State, there will be peace in country..... 15. The petition is according allowed. FIR No. 4/2005 registered against the pe­titioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Sarnay Pur Badli is quashed and all con­sequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped.” I am of the view that a quietus should be given to this matter since the matter has been amicably settled, and there is hardly any likelihood of the prosecution succeeding in the matter. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and FIR 152/2012 under section 279/337/304A IPC with PS Parliament Street and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. The petition stands disposed off accordingly.