Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Quashing of FIR Despite Compromise in Rash Driving Case

Court Upholds Legal Doctrine, Emphasizes Societal Impact Over Private Settlements in Non-Compoundable Offenses

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, despite a compromise reached between the accused and the family of the deceased. The case involved Satnam Singh, charged with causing death by rash and negligent driving, resulting in the fatal accident of Gurjit Singh in Moga district.

The court, presided by Justice Sumeet Goel, reiterated the principle that offenses under Section 304A cannot be quashed solely based on a compromise with the victim's family. The judgment emphasized that the deceased is the real victim in such cases, and any settlement with family members does not absolve the offender. The judgment highlighted the grave societal implications of rash and negligent driving, stressing that such offenses cannot be treated as private disputes.

The petitioner, Satnam Singh, had sought the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings, including his conviction, based on a compromise deed dated April 7, 2024, with the victim's father, Harbhajan Singh. Despite the compromise, the court maintained that the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, do not extend to quashing FIRs for non-compoundable offenses that impact society at large.

Justice Goel underscored the importance of judicial restraint, noting that allowing quashing based on compromise could commodify penal absolution, undermining the rule of law. The court's decision aligns with previous Supreme Court rulings that prioritize societal welfare over private settlements in serious and heinous offenses.

The judgment also highlighted the evolution of victimology, recognizing the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. It reaffirmed that the consent of the primary victim, in this case, the deceased Gurjit Singh, is essential for any compromise to hold legal weight.

Legal experts view this ruling as a reaffirmation of the judicial commitment to uphold the integrity of the legal system and ensure that justice serves the broader societal interest, especially in cases involving loss of life due to negligence.

Bottom Line:

FIR registered under Section 304A IPC cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased victim.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 304A; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 106; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2811281