High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26218/2025dismissed

Rahul Kumar And ANR v. State Of Haryana And Another

2026-03-12Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi12 pages

!"#

$#%&'& ( ) *) Rahul Kumar and anr.

...... Petitioner(s) V/s State of Haryana and anr.

...Respondents

+ , ) -

- -

Present:

Mr. Jaiveer Singh, Advocate, with Mr. Yash Giri, Advocate, with Mr. Mohit Siwaich, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Geeta Rani, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ravi Danghi, Advocate, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No.2.

*****

- - .

) /!0 The prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.0533 dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P61) under Section 105, 3(5), 324(4) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station City Palwal, District Palwal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P63).

The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Laxman and reads as under:6

! " # $! %&# '( )

! *+ *#,-#

' ( "0 #

)

! " #1

%&1

$34

%&# "

# # # ! $!$5$6 !! !% %&#

'( " #

# ! $! !$5$6

%&&2*"

'(! $!45#

" ! # !*#

) # # #* # ' ( #

# " ) + # -

$ '( ) '( !

) ) -

/ 6

)

# $#

!) #

%&#

'( ) # &2*"

## 2"

+ # + #! !

,-#!

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, a compromise (Annexure P63) has been arrived at between the parties. The statements of both the sides have been recorded with respect to the said compromise. Certain payments have also been made in furtherance of the compromise. He, therefore, prays that the FIR (Annexure P61) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. Reliance is placed on

! "# $$% &%

'( )#*+#+ )##, +

. $(/ #0#,1#++

2%3%( #, % 44!

& "# &%$$%

&'( #0 5

6 $6 "# !% %

&'(1+

)- 44$

& "# &% !%

/0 0

)- !$4 &

$ "# $ %$$%

'7%

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that as the offence is under Section 3046A IPC (Section 1066A BNS), the same cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise. Reliance is placed on the judgments in 8+

)- % $ &'

9 +

( )

)- !6&

"# & % 6%

'(0# #, :#

!.$ 4 6

; 3

& "# $6% %

7% 5.

The learned counsel for the complainant6respondent No.2 while supporting the averments made on behalf of the petitioners contends that a compromise has indeed been arrived at and he has no objection if the FIR in question and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed on the basis of the said compromise.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of 8+

)- % $ &'9 +

held as under:6 $5!

) )

) # ) )

# # ) #1

) ! ) #) # 489 :4; !

# # +

) +#

+ !

$ !,

) ) 459

# # ##

!* 456) #

)

#!# ) ##

) # ! +

456

###

) )

! *

) ) # #<# #

)

)# !

$$!)

6=$!

!!)

# !

)

) ##

)

# )+ >*0 456*!

!!0

)

456 +

)

< ) ) #: ; !

In )

)- !6&

"# & % 6%

'(this Court held as under:6 4! )

(

( ) )!

?! $5 @:4;, $5$5 ) 3

"# $%# $

& !

(

) ) *

)

(

,- .

( 0 )

# ( (

3 ) '

4 +

& 1

5$6'5') 6 7$

$%&' !

8 ! (!!

)

(!! (

)

!((

$%&'!

) )

+ 8 *

)* !

(

999999999

$% &'

( +!

) !!

+ !

) ) ( !! !

(

$% +

( 8 !

(!) !

8( (

( # )

+ 8 !

999999999

( #

( 8 ! + +

8 !

)

) )

(

! !

1 ! !

$% +!

) + 8

)

) )

)

$% 8

)

) ) +

(

) )

1 !

)

)* )

)

+ #

8 8

+ !

)

! "#

In 0# #, :# *

!.$ 4 6(this Court held as under:6 $! 456* < 5@: ; (2

)

#! #

)

# ) )

# # #

)

) )

) !

3& )

(

( ) )! $5 @: @6;*459

3 "18. In the facts and circumstances of the case it would indeed be paradoxical and incorrect to hold that the offence under Section 3046A is private in nature. Its serious impact on society is not subject to understatement. When a person or persons lose their life/lives due to the rash and negligent act of the accused, the question of mens rea or intention in such a situation pales into insignificance. The wrong cannot be termed to be private or personal in nature like offences arising out of matrimony, relating to dowry etc., family disputes or criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly a civil flavour like commercial, financial, mercantile, civil or partnership matters.

XXXX

20. To say that Courts should not hesitate to intervene in favour of the accused in such cases is indeed a dangerous proposition with a potential to provide an impetus to a proclavity on the part of the drivers to continue with their rash and negligent act buoyed by the thought that they would get away with the crime by affording sufficient compensation to the victim's legal representatives. Once it has been authoritatively held by the Supreme Court that even grant of compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr. P.C. is not to be regarded as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence imposed and neither can it be a substitute for an adequate sentence in all cases, it cannot be held that in cases where the matter is settled with the legal heirs of the deceased by giving adequate compensation, the proceedings should be quashed.

21. Likewise, to draw an analogy that in cases involving the offence under Section 307 which are of heinous nature, it has been opined by the courts that the factum of a settlement or compromise between the parties can be a guiding factor, is not justified. In the case under Section 3046A the victim is obviously not present to settle the matter. To permit a legal representative or legal heir to

compromise or settle the matter is indeed an invitation to a dangerous trend and cannot be permitted. To quash the proceedings under Section 3046A solely on the basis of a settlement or compromise arrived at between the accused and the legal representatives is not permissible and militates against all canons of justice. Inclusion of the legal representatives in the definition of victim does not clothe him/them to enter into such a settlement, though the legal representative, undoubtedly has the authority to file an appeal or receive compensation."

4! + #<##

) #

# !

) )

) # !! !* #

# #

# # !

10.

; 3

& "# $6% %

( this Court held as under:6 B!* ## #

+ ) )

) )

)

##! )#

# >*0 94 !

! #

# #

# +

) ! #

+ # >*0

3 +

2! $!

, #

)

6=$ !

!!-

! 456 *

# # )

!##

1 # / )!

,-# 2 :

; )

# + #

! #

) #!

5! ) # 2!**

6=$!

!! #

) !

># # #

+ #

456* !* # >*0 # / 0#

) ##

2!$

!*) )

(i) The petition in hand; seeking quashing of FIR No. 0392 of 2021 dated 07.10.2021 registered under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, as also the chargesheet dated 24.10.2021 (Annexure P62) alongwith the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise deed dated 09.05.2023; is dismissed. (ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the concerned Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with the same.

(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

11.

As regards the judgments in !1!( 234!/ 5 !1!( '36/!. 2!/!47&" 8!0&1!0 5 2!/!47&" -&(98 5 2!/!4 5 2!4!0 '36/!.

4/&: -&(98 &00 '36/!. -&:!($#/ !$!; !($ !( "8#/ '36/!.

30'8!( 234!/ !($ "8#/' '36/! !($ '8 : 234!/ 5 -8 :!

'36/! relied upon by the petitioners, none of them have considered the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in 8+

)- %;

'( wherein it has been categorically held that an offence under Section 3046A IPC (Section 1066A BNS) cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise. Therefore, the said judgments are clearly

#and cannot be relied upon for quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise.

12.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and therefore, the same stands dismissed.

13.

Needless to say that the petitioners would be at liberty to file a fresh petition for quashing on merits, if so advised. 14.

The pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly.

- -

!/%8 . sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No