The main legal point established in the judgment is that heinous offences with a serious impact on society cannot be compromised, while offences affecting private parties can be compromised.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 144/2021 dated 09.09.2021 registered at Police Station Indora, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of IPC and consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. As per the FIR, the informant, his friends Happy Singh, Sushil Kumar and Arjun Singh were travelling on the tractor. Happy Singh got down from the tractor and went to answer the call of nature. The informant and other persons waited for him on the tractor. They heard the cries of Happy Singh. They went to the spot and saw Happy Singh lying on his stomach. When the informant and Sushil Kumar tried to pick up Happy Singh, they suffered an electric shock. They checked the surroundings with the mobile and found that electric wires were installed. These wires were installed by Ganesh Kumar and Tilak Raj to save their crop from the wild animals. The act of the accused could have led to the death of any person and this act led to the death of Happy Singh. The police conducted the investigation and prepared a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The parties have settled the matter. Statements of Uday Singh, Prem Singh and Asha Devi were recorded. Uday Singh, Prem Singh father of Happy Singh and Asha Devi mother of Happy Singh stated that they had entered into a compromise voluntarily with the accused without any influence, hence, the FIR be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State.

5. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties, therefore, the FIR be quashed. He has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in Ramlingam Sambanth & ors. versus State of H.P and ors, 2023:HHC:5908, Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju versus State of H.P and Ors., 2022: HHC: 8166, by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sikander Yadav & Anr. versus State of Haryana & Ors, 2023:PHHC:034896, by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajan versus Joseph & ors in Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2015 and Delhi High Court in Rohit Kumar Gupta and anr. versus State NCT of Delhi & Anr in Crl. MC. No.1867 of 2022 in support of his submission.

6. Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent no.1/State submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments under Section 304A of IPC, whereas, the accused has been charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC, hence, these judgments do not apply to the present case. The act of the accused was inherently dangerous. They had put the lives of the public in danger. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the power of the Court to quash the FIR based on the compromise in Narender Singh versus State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 and laid down the following principles:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between thems