Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 November, 2022
-1-
CRM-M-50822 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-50822 of 2022
Date of decision: 21.11.2022
Baljinder Singh
......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.0027 dated 04.03.2017 under Sections 304-
A/279/337/427 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District
Sangrur, on the basis of compromise dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure P-3).
On the last date of hearing, following order was passed: -
"This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of FIR No.27 dated 04.03.2017 under Sections 304-A,
279, 337 & 427 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar
Dhuri, District Sangrur and all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of compromised deed dated
14.10.2022 (Annexure P-3), arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to address
arguments in view of the Division Bench judgment passed in
CRM-M40769-2014 titled as 'Baldev Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another' decided on 02.06.2016, wherein it has
been held that compromise quashing is not maintainable, where
1 of 6
CRM-M-50822 of 2022
the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, has been registered .
Adjourned to 21.11.2022."
No one is present on behalf of the petitioner.
The issue as to whether the FIR registered under Sections 279,
304-A, 427 IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise/settlement
arrived at between the parties, came up for hearing before a Division
Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh (supra) wherein it has been held as
under: -
"The offence under Section 304-A IPC presents a situation
where the victim has lost his life in an accident. The legal
representatives of the deceased may enter into a compromise
with the accused for considerations best known to them, but to
say that an offence under Section 304-A is private in nature is
wholly incorrect. It is an offence which impacts society as a
whole with its ripples casting their net far and wide, permeating
to the very core.
While dealing with the question of reduction of sentence
imposed under Section 304-A on account of compensation paid
to the legal representatives of the deceased it has been observed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Saurabh
Bakshi, Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2015, that there can be no
proposition of law that whenever an accused offers acceptable
compensation for rehabilitation of a victim regardless of the
gravity of the crime under Section 304-A, there should be a
reduction in the sentence imposed. The increase in the number
of road accidents where the drivers were totally rash and
negligent was noticed. It was observed that they were driving
with youthful enthusiasm as if there were no traffic rules or no
discipline of law had come centre stage. Misplaced sympathy
while applying the payment of compensation in such cases was
decried. Such a mockery of justice would necessarily shatter the
2 of 6
CRM-M-50822 of 2022
faith of public in the judicial system. There should not be an
impetus to the nonchalant attitude of drivers who feel that "they
are emperors of all they survey". In a situation where poor felt
that their lives are not safe and the pedestrians think of their
uncertainty and the civilized persons drove in constant fear but
were still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the
people who project themselves as larger than life the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in immense anguish observed that the law
makers should scrutinize, re-look and re-visit the sentencing
policy in Section 304-A IPC. It is specifically observed that it is
obligatory on the part of the court to see the impact of the
society as a whole and its ramifications on the immediate
collective as well as its repercussions on the victim.
In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana 2000(2) R.C.R. (Criminal)
816, it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that,
"1. When automobiles have become death traps any
leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of
rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation
of road accidents. All those who are manning the
steering of automobiles, particularly professional
drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of
their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the
consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction.
One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers
under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element
in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them
in that sphere would tempt them to make driving
frivolous and a frolic.
(Emphasis added )
13.Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road
accidents in India and the devastating consequences
visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts
cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section
3 of 6
CRM-M-50822 of 2022
304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While
considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed
for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent
driving of automobiles, 6 (2000) 5 SCC 821 Page 13
one of the prime considerations should be deterrence.
A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the
automobile almost throughout his working hours. He
must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford
to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness
when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in
locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance
thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily
cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it
need not necessarily result in the death of any human
being; or even if such death ensues he might not be
convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is
convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the
court. He must always keep in his mind the fear
psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for
causing death of a human being due to his callous
driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail
sentence. This is the role which the courts can play,
particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening
the high rate of motor accidents due to callous
driving of automobiles."
In the facts and circumstances of the case it would indeed be
paradoxical and incorrect to hold that the offence under
Section 304-A is private in nature. Its serious impact on society
is not subject to understatement. When a person or persons lose
their life/lives due to the rash and negligent act of the accused,
the question of mens rea or intention in such a situation pales
into insignificance. The wrong cannot be termed to be private
4 of 6
CRM-M-50822 of 2022
or personal in nature like offences arising out of matrimony,
relating to dowry etc., family disputes or criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly a civil flavour like
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil or partnership matters.
Another argument addressed vehemently in favour of the
proposition is that the legal heirs get adequate compensation in
a given situation and a quietus is afforded to needless
litigation, as many a times criminal proceedings are initiated
solely with a view to seek compensation. There is a basic flaw
in this argument which compels us to reject it. To presume that
a human life can be allowed to be shattered away due to the
rash and negligent act, may be a mindless act or of false
bravado or brazenness and thereafter permit its
compounding/settlement on the basis of 'just monetary
compensation' or any other consideration amounts to nothing
but a complete mockery of justice, totally offensive to civilized
thought. The question of compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act is a totally separate issue. There can be no
question of bartering of a human life in this manner. While
being fully conscious of the ground realities of our society
where the victim's family may be in penury and may be beguiled
into a compromise due to the harsh realities of life, a stamp of
approval over such an activity cannot be afforded by the court.
To say that Courts should not hesitate to intervene in favour of
the accused in such cases is indeed a dangerous proposition
with a potential to provide an impetus to a proclavity on the
part of the drivers to continue with their rash and negligent act
buoyed by the thought that they would get away with the crime
by affording sufficient compensation to the victim's legal
representatives. Once it has been authoritatively held by the
Supreme Court that even grant of compensation under Section
357 (3) Cr. P.C. is not to be regarded as a mitigating
circumstance to reduce the sentence imposed and neither can it
5 of 6
CRM-M-50822 of 2022
be a substitute for an adequate sentence in all cases, it cannot
be held that in cases where the matter is settled with the legal
heirs of the deceased by giving adequate compensation, the
proceedings should be quashed.
Likewise, to draw an analogy that in cases involving the offence
under Section 307 which are of heinous nature, it has been
opined by the courts that the factum of a settlement or
compromise between the parties can be a guiding factor, is not
justified. In the case under Section 304-A the victim is obviously
not present to settle the matter. To permit a legal representative
or legal heir to compromise or settle the matter is indeed an
invitation to a dangerous trend and cannot be permitted. To
quash the proceedings under Section 304-A solely on the basis
of a settlement or compromise arrived at between the accused
and the legal representatives is not permissible and militates
against all canons of justice. Inclusion of the legal
representatives in the definition of victim does not clothe
him/them to enter into such a settlement, though the legal
representative, undoubtedly has the authority to file an appeal
or receive compensation."
In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in Baldev Singh's case (supra), the present petition is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
21.11.2022 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
