Criminal Liability Not 'Purchasable Commodity', Death By Negligence Case Can't Be Quashed On Compromise: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has cautioned against the “probable erosion of judicial integrity” where criminal proceedings involving serious offences—particularly those under Section 304-A IPC/Section 106 BNS (Causing death by negligence)—are sought to be quashed solely on the basis of compromise between the accused and the victim's family.Justice Sumeet Goel observed that...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has cautioned against the “probable erosion of judicial integrity” where criminal proceedings involving serious offences—particularly those under Section 304-A IPC/Section 106 BNS (Causing death by negligence)—are sought to be quashed solely on the basis of compromise between the accused and the victim's family.
Justice Sumeet Goel observed that such settlements, often involving monetary consideration, create a “deleterious impact on the societal psyche” by portraying criminal liability as a purchasable commodity.
"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. Such a scenario suggests that penal absolution is a purchasable commodity, thereby, implying that serious public wrongs, in which society as a whole has stakes, can be put to naught by the accused person's financial capacity," the Court observed.
Antithetical To Rule Of Law, Privatisation Of Criminal Liability
The bench said that, "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."
It further stated that, 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 judge referred to "an old age adage":
“Why in history has everyone always focused on the guy with the big stick, the hero, the activist, to the neglect of the poor slob who is at the end of the stick, the victim, the passivist – or maybe, the poor slob (in bondages) isn't all that much of a passivist victim – maybe he asked for it?”
The Court was hearing a petition filed under seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC.
According to the FIR, the complainant Harbhajan Singh alleged that, his son Gurjit Singh and another rider were travelling on a motorcycle when a JCB, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner Satnam Singh, struck the vehicle. Gurjit Singh suffered a fatal head injury and died en route to the hospital.
Arguing for quashing of the FIR, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties had amicably resolved the dispute and that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. The State, however, opposed the plea, emphasising that the petitioner had already been convicted after trial and that offences under Section 304-A IPC cannot be nullified on the basis of compromise.
After hearing the submissions, the Court underlined that in cases involving death, the deceased—not the complainant or surviving relatives—is the real victim. Therefore, any compromise entered into with family members cannot form the basis for quashing proceedings:
“The primary victim… is no longer capable of expressing consent or grievance, rendering any compromise with the informant incongruous with this foundational principle,” it added.
The Court warned that permitting quashing in such instances “undermines the rule of law” and trivialises the seriousness of the offence.
Victim Can't Be Rendered A Forgotten Entity
The Court opined that, a victim can no longer be relegated to the periphery or rendered a forgotten entity once the machinery of criminal law has been set into motion. "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," it added.
The law must adopt an equipoise approach, harmoniously balancing the competing interests of the accused and the victim. It is a bounden duty of the courts of law to ensure that justice embraces the injured and afflicted, it added.
Referring to observation made by J. F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla in Union of India Vs.V. Sriharan @ Murugan &Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 1, the bench said, "....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.”
Reiterating the consistent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir and Laxmi Narayan, the Court held that inherent powers—though wide—must be exercised with restraint. While disputes of a private nature may be quashed on compromise, offences with a public element or resulting in loss of life cannot be.
Holding that the FIR pertained to the death of Gurjit Singh, who “cannot be a party to the compromise”, the Court dismissed the plea for quashing, noting that the petitioner had already been convicted after trial. Any permissible challenge, it observed, must be taken before the appellate court on merits, not through a compromise-based quashing petition.
Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Additional AG Punjab.
Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Title: Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab and another