‘Life not a private commodity’: HC refuses to quash factory accident FIR on compromise

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that allowing a compromise to terminate criminal proceedings in a Haryana factory accident case would treat a ‘lost life' as a private commodity, negating the deterrent effect of law and public safety element inherent in such tragedies.The HC passed the orders while dismissing a petition filed by Pradeep Kumar Tomar and another accused seeking quashing of a 2021 FIR registered at Ferozepur Jhirka police station under Section 304 A (causing death by negligence) of IPC. The petition also sought to annul the Oct 24, 2021, chargesheet and all consequential proceedings on a compromise deed executed on May 9, 2023.
"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 extinguished a human life," the HC held. In its detailed order, Justice Sumeet Goel observed 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. "The power to quash an FIR/criminal proceeding is an equitable remedy that must not be used to bypass the gravity of an irreversible harm. Crimes involving death transcend the boundaries of a private injury and instead fall in the category of crime against society at large," Justice Goel observed. The case stems from an accident on Oct 6, 2021, when two workmen, Om and Rampal, fell from a beam of a shuttering structure after a portion of it collapsed. Om succumbed to his injuries at a local hospital, while Rampal, who was initially treated and later taken home, also died. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Om's brother-in-law. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the accused were contractual employees and lacked supervisory or managerial role in the execution of the shuttering work. They contended that there was no specific allegation in the FIR or the final report indicating any act or omission constituting criminal negligence on their part. The petitioners argued that the incident was accidental and they extended financial assistance of Rs 3 lakh each to the families of the deceased, besides covering medical expenses. They relied heavily on the compromise entered with the complainant, who stated that the FIR was lodged under a misunderstanding and that he no longer wished to pursue the case. After hearing all the parties, the HC dismissed the plea, observing that the FIR cannot be quashed merely because of a compromise. BOX The silence of the grave cannot be substituted by the signatures of the heirs on a compromise/settlement deed, and the petition for quashing must fail on the altar of this foundational legal truth High courtMSID:: 128554850 413 |