FIR U/S/ 304A IPC Cannot Be Quashed On Basis Of Compromise: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR and conviction based on a compromise entered into between the accused and the informant.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel analysed the statutory provisions and the governing jurisprudence, and observed that “it is clear nay crystal clear that an FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section 304-A of the IPC/Section 106 of the BNS cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise/ settlement arrived at between the accused on one hand and FIR/complainant/ informant/surviving family of the victim (including spouse/parents/children/guardian/care-giver etc.) on the other hand”.

The Bench further emphasised that “…even if credence is sought to be lend to such a compromise/settlement, by way of raising plea(s) on merits, including the plea that the offence of Section 304-A of the IPC /Section 106 of the BNS is not made out in the facts/circumstances of a given case, still such petition ought to be rejected”.

Advocate Kamaldip Singh Sidhu represented the petitioner, while Amit Kumar Goyal, Additional Advocate General, represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR registered for causing death by negligence and rash driving.

The FIR alleged that the deceased succumbed to injuries caused by the petitioner’s rash and negligent driving of a heavy vehicle. A compromise was subsequently entered into between the accused and the father of the deceased, and the petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, the proceedings, and the conviction recorded by the Trial Court.

The State opposed the petition, relying on binding precedents to argue that offences under Section 304-A cannot be treated as private disputes and cannot be annulled through compromise.

Court’s Observation

The Punjab & Haryana High Court examined the statutory provisions under the IPC, BNS, CrPC and BNSS, and reiterated the settled position that inherent powers of the High Court are distinct from statutory compounding.

The Court explained that while powers under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS may be invoked to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, they cannot be employed to neutralise serious offences affecting society at large.

The Court traced the jurisprudence beginning with Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Laxmi Narayan, and Daxaben, noting that the distinction between private disputes and crimes against society forms the cornerstone of the test for quashing.

Referring to the Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh, the Court reaffirmed that offences under Section 304-A cannot be characterised as private, because the consequence, loss of life, extends far beyond the immediate disputants. The Court emphasised that the real victim in a case of death caused by negligence is the deceased, who cannot participate in or consent to any compromise.

The Court also analysed the evolution of victim-centric jurisprudence, noting that criminal law no longer focuses solely on the rights of the accused. Amendments recognising the rights of victims, and judicial dicta stressing the duty of courts to protect the interests of victims and society, were highlighted as essential considerations.

The Bench reiterated that treating such offences as “negotiable commodities”, subject to financial settlements between parties, undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system and violates the rule of law. It stressed that monetising criminal liability risks creating a perception that accountability for serious offences can be purchased.

Finally, applying the legal principles to the facts, the Court held that since the FIR concerned the death of a person, no compromise with the complainant or surviving family could form the basis for quashing. The deceased, being the primary victim, is incapable of consenting. Therefore, the petition was not maintainable.

Conclusion

The Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, the proceedings, and the conviction arising out of the allegation of causing death by negligence. It clarified that the appellate proceedings would continue uninfluenced by the present order.

Cause Title: Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:16281)

Appearances

Petitioner: Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate

Respondents: Amit Kumar Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment