Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUMEET GOEL, J.
Satnam Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another - Respondents
CRM-M-59021-2025
Decided On : 20-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Additional AG, Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate

The FIR under Section 304-A cannot be quashed based on compromise, given the serious nature of the offence and its societal implications.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304-A & 279 - Quashing of FIR - FIR alleging death due to rash and negligent driving - Compromise between parties cannot quash FIR under Section 304-A as it cannot be treated as a private matter due to its serious implications on society - Quashing is inappropriate, as the deceased cannot consent. (Paras 8, 16, 17)

(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - High Court's power under Section 482 is distinct from compounding offences under Section 320 - High Court must consider the gravity of the crime; compromising serious offences such as 304-A is not permissible. (Paras 10.2, 12.1)

Facts of the case:
Petition was filed by the accused for quashing an FIR related to the death of a motorcyclist from a negligent act of driving. The petitioner claimed a compromise with the complainant, which could not involve the deceased.

Findings of Court:
The High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that FIR under Section 304-A cannot be quashed based solely on a compromise; the implications for society require the case to proceed.

Issues: Whether the FIR under Section 304-A can be quashed based on a compromise.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that due to the serious nature of the charges and the implications for society, a compromise cannot absolve the accused from the proceedings of a substantial criminal case.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. description of the incident leading to fir. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the merits and settlement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's reasoning on quashing fir based on compromise. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. the decision to reject the quashing of fir. (Para 16)
5. conclusion and order. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

The present petition has been preferred by the accused under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the FIR No.48 dated 09.06.2022 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘impugned FIR’), registered under Sections 304-A & 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga, as also the proceedings subsequent thereto, including the judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed in case No.CHI/282/2022 titled as “State versus Satnam Singh” by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga (hereinafter referred to as ‘JMIC’), on the basis of a compromise deed dated 07.04.2024 (copy whereof is appended as Annexure P-4 with the present petition).

2. The gravamen of the impugned FIR is that complainant, namely, Harbhajan Singh, son of Gurmail Singh, stated that on 08.06.2022 at about 6:00 p.m., his son, namely, Gurjit Singh, along with Ashpreet Singh (son of Swaran Singh, resident of village Chuhar Chak), was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB29-AC-6834 (Platina) from village Buttar towards Takhanvadh. The complainant was following them on his own motorcycle bearing registration No.PB29N-1761 (Platina). When the motorcycle of his son and Ashpreet Singh reached near the house of Jagdeep Singh, son of Nahar Singh, resident of village Takhanvadh, a JCB machine bearing registration No.PB29X-4981 approached from the direction of Takhanvadh at high speed, being driven rashly and negligently by Satnam Singh, petitioner herein, (whose identity the complainant learnt after the incident), son of Balwinder Singh, resident of Takhanvadh. The JCB struck the motorcycle, causing serious injuries to Gurjit Singh and Ashpreet Singh. Gurjit Singh sustained a head injury. People gathered at the spot, and the complainant arranged a vehicle to take his injured son to Civil Hospital, Moga. However, Gurjit Singh succumbed to his injuries on the way. Ashpreet Singh was admitted to Civil Hospital, village Dhudike.Based on these set of allegations, the impugned FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the impugned FIR. Learned counsel has further submitted that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the FIR-complainant (father of the deceased) on 07.04.2024, relevant whereof reads as under:

“I, Harbhajan Singh, Aadhar No.858259264437 son of Gurmail Singh son of Sampuran Singh resident of Dhudike (First Party)

Balwinder Singh, Aadhar No._ son of Gurcharan Singh son of Inder Singh resident of Takhanwad, District Moga. About 2 years ago, Harbhajan Singh's son Gurjit Singh had an accident with Balwinder Singh's Hydra Crane, which was driven by Balwinder Singh's son Satnam Singh. Gurjit Singh has been died. Harbhajan Singh has filed cases against Balwinder Singh & Satnam Singh, in one of which Satnam Singh has been convicted and against Balwinder Singh, a claim case is pending in the High Court. Today dated 07.04.2024, both the parties have been affected compromise in the presence of respectable persons namely Jasdip Singh @ Garry, Jagtar Singh Dhaliwal and Chamkaur Singh Kamrade. Second party Balwinder Singh will be pay an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to those three respectable persons upto dated 14.04.2024 and Harbhajan Singh will be bound to give the statement to a lawyers in the Hon’ble Courts wherever it is required to do so. Balwinder Singh will bear the expense of the lawyers in the case. Compromise has written, which can useful. Dated 07.04.2024.”

Learned counsel has, thus, iterated that the impugned FIR which was