IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

272 CRM-M-17631-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Ravi Kumar Bhalla ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG Haryana Mr. Sahil Goyal, Advocate for Ms. Kajal, Advocate for respondent No.2 *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.63, dated 05.04.2023, registered under Sections 304-A IPC, at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula, Haryana, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the owner of Bhalla Agency (Bajaj Motorcycle) while the deceased was the worker thereof, had died due to electrocution and thus, FIR under Section 304-A IPC was registered. Thereafter, with the intervention of the respectable, the matter had been compromised and statements had been record. In this regard, reference is made to para Nos.6 and 7 of the judgment of this Court in Sikander Yadav and Another vs. State of Haryana and Others, CRM-M-55259-2019, decided on 24.02.2023, which read thus:

“6. In the present case, the offense under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC]. 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 mensrea 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 provides for compromise with the legal representatives of the deceased when the victim has expired during the pendency. The difference is that in Section 304A IPC cases, the victim expires not during the pendency but because of the accident. Another angle that cannot be lost is that when the deceased’s family absolves the accused of any negligence or rash act, it would be impossible for the prosecution to succeed during the trial. Thus, quashing of cases under Section 304-A IPC, other than roadside accidents, can be quashed depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the role assigned to the accused, mensrea, and the guilt of the such person.

7. In the present case, petitioner no. 1 is the civil contractor, and 2nd is the property's owner. The deceased was staying with her husband in the underconstruction house of 2nd petitioner. At around 11-00 A.M., i.e., in broad daylight, when she was cleaning the area, she removed the electrical wire from the motor of a water pump. Since the surface below was wet, the moment she touched the wire, she got an electric shock, which led to her death. The affidavit regarding the compromise of her husband specifically stated that neither the owner of the plot nor the contractor was responsible for the said accident in any manner whatsoever. In fact, after the death, both contributed financially and emotionally by helping them. They also spent the entire money on her treatment and handed over the deceased's husband a sum of Rs Three lakhs