Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash an FIR registered under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant, holding that offences involving death by negligence cannot be privatized through financial settlements. Dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court underscored that in cases where “a lost life” is involved, the silence of the deceased cannot be substituted by the signatures of heirs on a compromise deed, a principle it described as foundational to the rule of law.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR dated 07.10.2021 registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka under Section 304-A IPC, along with the charge-sheet dated 24.10.2021 and all consequential proceedings. The FIR stemmed from a fatal workplace accident that occurred on 06.10.2021 at around 6:00 PM at a factory premises. Two workmen, Om and Rampal, allegedly fell while walking on a beam of a shuttering structure after a portion of it collapsed.
Both sustained injuries; Om succumbed shortly thereafter, while Rampal died later despite medical treatment at Blossom Hospital, Agra. The complaint was lodged by the brother-in-law of the deceased Om. During investigation, certain originally named persons, including the Director and foreman, were placed in Column No. II of the challan. Subsequently, a compromise deed dated 09.05.2023 was executed between the petitioners and the complainant, leading to the present plea for quashing.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the accused were merely contractual employees at the factory and had no supervisory or technical role in the execution of the shuttering work. It was argued that neither the FIR nor the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. attributed any specific act or omission constituting “criminal negligence” within the meaning of Section 304-A IPC. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the Director and foreman had been found innocent during investigation. The incident, according to the petitioners, was purely accidental as only a portion of the structure collapsed while the remaining structure remained intact.
The petitioners further highlighted that financial assistance of Rs.3,00,000/- had been paid to each bereaved family and medical expenses were borne, demonstrating bona fide conduct. Relying upon precedents including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, counsel submitted that where the parties have amicably settled and the complainant has no objection, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Per contra, the State counsel opposed the petition, asserting that Section 304-A IPC involves loss of human life and cannot be reduced to a private dispute. It was argued that the offence is non-compoundable and directly implicates public safety. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it was contended, are to be exercised sparingly and not in cases where the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence affecting society at large. A compromise with the complainant, who is not the primary victim, cannot extinguish criminal liability arising from an act that allegedly caused death.
Observations of the Court:
The Court embarked on an extensive doctrinal analysis of the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., revisiting the jurisprudence laid down in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, and Laxmi Narayan. It reiterated that while quashing on the basis of compromise is permissible in disputes having “overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavor,” the same principle cannot be mechanically extended to cases involving death by negligence.
Drawing from its own earlier pronouncement in Satnam Singh, the Court emphasized that the “basic and essential edifice” of quashing on compromise is the consent of the victim. However, in offences under Section 304-A IPC, “the deceased remains the primary aggrieved party.” In a striking articulation, the Court held, “The silence of the grave cannot be substituted by the signatures of the heirs on a compromise/settlement deed.”
It reasoned that though the statutory definition of ‘victim’ may include legal heirs for procedural purposes, such inclusion does not confer upon them the moral or legal authority “to condone a death on behalf of the departed.” The Court cautioned against commodification of criminal justice, observing that permitting quashing merely because financial compensation has been paid would suggest that “penal absolution is a purchasable commodity.” Such an approach, it warned, would erode public confidence and undermine the deterrent function of criminal law.
Rejecting the argument that a factory mishap is distinguishable from a road accident, the Court held that “the core issue is not the geography of the incident but the legal impossibility of a compromise where the primary victim is no longer present to offer his/her consent.” It further noted that questions regarding the petitioners’ role, duties, and alleged negligence are matters of evidence to be adjudicated at trial and cannot be pre-emptively determined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The decision of the Court:
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR and the charge sheet arising therefrom. The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the trial on merits. The ratio decidendi is unequivocal: offences under Section 304-A IPC, involving death caused by alleged negligence, cannot be quashed solely on the basis of compromise between the accused and the complainant or legal heirs, as such crimes transcend private injury and engage the broader societal interest in accountability and public safety.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Tomar and anr Vs. State of Haryana and anr.
Case No.: CRM-M-24420-2023
Coram: Hon’ble. Justice Sumeet Goel
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Amrita Garg,
Advocate for the Respondent: AAG. Gurmeet Singh, Adv. Anjali Sheoran,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
