Compromise between complainant, accused void if victim excluded: HC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 22

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that any compromise between an accused and the complainant after excluding the victim will not only be void but also against the mandate of law. The ruling came in a case of causing death by negligence.

The matter was placed before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul after two accused filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered in April, 2019, for offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of the IPC at the Pinjore police station in Panchkula district on the basis of a compromise between them and the complainant.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the parties had amicably resolved their dispute and decided to put to rest the criminal case pending between them with the intervention of respectables subsequent to the lodging of the FIR. The continuation of criminal proceedings, as such, would be a futile exercise, it was contended.

Justice Kaul asserted the courts should not hesitate from quashing an FIR in cases where the offences were private in nature and the parties had amicably settled their dispute. But the high court’s powers, though wide, were not unbridled and had to be exercised sparingly with utmost restraint. The quashing of an FIR on the basis of a compromise could be permitted by invoking powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, but only when both accused and the victim were parties to the settlement arrived at.

Referring to a Division Bench judgment, Justice Kaul asserted its reading left no manner of doubt that the deceased would fall within the meaning of a “victim” in offences particularly affecting the human body as he or she suffered injury and subsequent loss of life on account of an act or its omission for which the accused has been charged with.

“No doubt, the legal heirs of the deceased would also fall within the definition of ‘victim’. But that would be to a limited extent for the purpose of maintaining an appeal… Any compromise between the accused and the complainant to the exclusion of the victim, who in the instant case would be the deceased and deceased alone, would not only be void but also against the mandate of law. If the courts start giving effect to compromise for offences like the one in hand and start quashing FIRs, it would be contrary to the statutory provisions of law,” Justice Kaul added.

Dismissing the petition in limine or at the threshold, Justice Kaul added the court would, as such, not be inclined to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the petitioners- accused and the complainant- grandfather of the deceased.

What court observed

Legal heirs of deceased would also fall within the definition of ‘victim’. But that would be to a limited extent for the purpose of maintaining an appeal. — Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul