JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person(s).

2. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused and the aggrieved person(s) have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioner(s) came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent no.2.

4. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 11.01.2021, the aggrieved person(s) (Respondent no.2) appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and stated that there would be no objection if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 27.01.2021, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat or coercion.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Despite the severe opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

c) The aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondent in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender;

h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society;

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. The State's counsel has severely opposed this compromise and seeks dismissal of the petition because of the heinous nature of the offence.

7. In the present case, the offence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings. Regarding the quashing of FIR under Section 304-A IPC, it is well settled that FIR cannot be quashed when it relates to death in a roadside accident. The rationale is to curb the ever-increasing accidental deaths because of rash and negligent driving. However, the scope of Section 304-A IPC is not restricted only to accidental road deaths but also to any rash and negligent act. It encompasses the actions taken casually, rashly, and negligently leading to accidental deaths. Thus, when the cause of death is because of a reason other than a roadside accident, the Court must consider the role of the accused and whether his actions were prima facie rash and negligent similar to those under road accident cases. In case the allegations are para-material like those of road accident cases, the FIR should not be quashed; however, when the role lacks mens rea or culpability, there is no reason not to quash the FIR, more so when the FIR for much graver offenses under Sections 307 or 326 IPC can be quashed. Furthermore, Section 320 CrPC provide