On Thursday, the Punjab & Haryana High Court cautioned against this emerging perception while examining a plea seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising out of a fatal road accident. The Bench employed strong judicial censure, warning that the expanding practice of compromise-driven quashing in cases involving death threatens the integrity of the criminal process and dilutes the role of victim rights in prosecutions under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Brief facts:
The case arose from an FIR registered against the petitioner, Satnam Singh, for allegedly driving a JCB in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of Gurjit Singh. As per the complaint filed by Harbhajan Singh, the victim suffered a severe head injury after the motorcycle he was riding was struck by the JCB and succumbed to the injury en route to the hospital. Following his conviction after a full trial, the Petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement reached with the deceased’s family.
Contentions:
The petitioner submitted that all disputes arising from the incident had been settled and that a compromise had been reached with the complainant. On this basis, it was argued that the proceedings deserved to be brought to an end under the Court’s inherent powers.
On the other hand, the State opposed the plea, asserting that the offences involved the death of a young man and could not be annulled merely on account of a private settlement. It was emphasised that the petitioner stood convicted after a full-fledged trial, and any challenge to the conviction must be pursued before the appellate forum rather than through compromise-based quashing.
Observation of the Court:
Justice Sumeet Goel noted that arrangements struck after the incident often carry a monetary element and observed that “This practice of entering into compromise, more often than not, involves pecuniary consideration; proferred as reparation or compensation to the victim’s family; creates deeply deleterious impact on the societal psyche that the criminal justice system is available for commodification.”
The Court warned that such a perception erodes public trust, stating, "Such an outcome is antithetical to the Rule of Law, which demands that the severity of a crime and penal consequences must remain insulated from the private financial arrangements of the parties, thereby, maintaining public confidence in the impartiality and deterrent efficacy of the justice delivery system. The law, being a guarantor of equity and fairness, cannot afford to be subjugated to the influence of wealth, lest it compromise its sacrosanct essence and institutional integrity. The inherent powers of this Court, ought not be employed for privatization of criminal liability."
The Court further highlighted that where death has occurred, the real victim cannot participate in the compromise, observing, "the primary victim is the deceased, whose demise is directly attributable to the accused’s alleged rash and negligent act/ driving. The deceased, being the primary aggrieved party (i.e. the real victim), is no longer capable of expressing consent or grievance, rendering any compromise with the informant or complainant incongruous with this foundational principle."
Citing concerns about the societal impact of permitting compromise in cases of death by negligence, the Court added that the justice system must protect the rights of victims and cannot be constrained solely to the interests of the accused. It emphasised that “The terminus of criminal justice system must transcend beyond the mere safeguarding of rights of an accused and must encompass the preservation and effective vindication of the rights of a victim.”
The Court reiterated, while referring to the case of Union of India Vs.V. Sriharan @ Murugan &Ors., that, “While considering the problem of penology we should not overlook the plight of victimology and the sufferings of the people who die, suffer or are maimed at the hands of criminals.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court held that the FIR related to the death of Gurjit Singh, who “cannot be a party to the compromise,” and therefore the proceedings could not be nullified on the basis of settlement. Observing that the petitioner had already been convicted after trial, the Bench ruled that any permissible challenge must be raised before the appellate court on the merits. The petition seeking quashing on the strength of the compromise was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Satnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another
Case No: CRM-M-59021-2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu
Advocate for the Respondent: AAG Amit Kumar Goyal, Adv. Kirandeep Kaur
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :