'Silence Of Grave' Can't Be Substituted By Signatures Of Heirs: P&H High Court Refuses To Quash Death By Negligence Case On Compromise
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that criminal proceedings under Section 304-A IPC involving loss of human life cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the deceased's relatives, observing that “the silence of the grave cannot be substituted by the signatures of the heirs on a compromise deed.”Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The essential edifice...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that criminal proceedings under Section 304-A IPC involving loss of human life cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the deceased's relatives, observing that “the silence of the grave cannot be substituted by the signatures of the heirs on a compromise deed.”
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The essential edifice of quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise, rests upon the absence of any subsisting grievance by the victim against the accused. However, in cases of homicidal negligence, the deceased remains the primary aggrieved party. Any settlement entered into by the relatives is, at best, a secondary resolution that cannot supersede the interest of the state, acting as parens patriae, in prosecuting an act that has extinguished a human life."
The Court pointed that while Section 2(x) of the BNSS, 2023 employs a statutory fiction to include 'guardians' and 'legal heirs' within the definition of a 'victim', this inclusion is intended for the purpose of compensation and procedural standing, rather than to afford them the moral or legal authority to condone a death on behalf of the departed. To allow such a compromise to terminate criminal proceedings would be to treat a 'lost life' as a purely private commodity and negating the deterrent effect of law and public safety element inherent in such tragedies.
"The power to quash an FIR/criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS is an equitable remedy that must not be used to bypass the gravity of an irreversible harm. Pertinently, crimes involving death transcend the boundaries of a private injury and rather fall in the category of crime against society at large," it added.
The FIR arose from a factory accident on October 6, 2021, in which two workmen — Om and Rampal — fell after a portion of a shuttering structure allegedly collapsed. Both later succumbed to their injuries. The complaint was lodged by the brother-in-law of one of the deceased.
The petitioners, stated to be contractual employees at the factory, sought quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet dated October 24, 2021, on the basis of a compromise deed dated May 9, 2023.
It was submitted that the Director and foreman named in the FIR had been found innocent and placed in Column No. II. The incident was accidental in nature. They had extended financial assistance of ₹3 lakh to the family of each deceased and bore medical expenses.
The complainant had filed an affidavit stating the FIR was lodged under misunderstanding and did not wish to pursue the matter.
Justice Goel relied extensively on Supreme Court judgements including, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), Laxmi Narayan case (2019)
The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab (2025), where it had held that offences under Section 304-A IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise since the primary victim — the deceased — is no longer capable of giving consent.
Rejecting the petitioners' attempt to distinguish the present case from a road accident case, the Court observed:
"Despite the factual matrix of instant case involving a mishappening at a factory premises being distinct from vehicular roadside accident in Satnam Singh, the underlying legal principle remains akin: the silence of the grave cannot be substituted by the signatures of the heirs on a compromise deed, and the petition for quashing must fail on the altar of this foundational legal truth.”
Victimology & Societal Interest
The Court undertook a detailed discussion on victimology, emphasising that in offences involving death, the deceased is the primary victim. A compromise with legal heirs, it held, cannot erase the societal dimension of criminal liability.
It cautioned that allowing quashing in such cases — often accompanied by financial settlements — risks creating a perception that criminal liability can be “commodified” and neutralised by monetary compensation, thereby eroding public confidence in the justice system.
The Court further clarified that inclusion of legal heirs within the statutory definition of “victim” under the BNSS is meant for procedural standing and compensation purposes, not to empower them to condone a death for purposes of terminating prosecution.
Defence On Merits To Be Tested At Trial
On the petitioners' arguments that they were mere contractual employees with no role in supervision, the Court held that such pleas constitute a defence that must be examined at trial after appreciation of evidence.
Similarly, payment of compensation to the families of the deceased was held not to be a ground for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 304-A IPC.
The Court observed that allegations regarding absence of safety measures at the workplace required evidentiary evaluation and could not be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Dismissing the petition, the Court held, the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
Ms. Amrita Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Title: Pradeep Kumar Tomar and another v. State of Haryana and another