Chandigarh, January 24
The loss of human life cannot be overlooked or obliterated from the mind, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted, while refusing to quash an FIR in a culpable homicide case on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.
Justice Namit Kumar also made it clear that the subsequent conduct of the rival sides of entering into a compromise in such matters was not a mitigating factor, prompting the court to accept the plea for quashing the proceedings.
Justice Kumar asserted that the parties might claim to “stand pacified” and living in peaceful co-existence. “However, the fact remains that the loss of human life cannot be ignored or forgotten, in light of subsequent conduct offered by the parties”.
Justice Kumar was hearing a petition seeking the quashing of the FIR, dated September 18, 2021, under Sections 304 and 34 of the IPC registered at the Dehlon police station in Ludhiana district. Directions were also sought on the basis of the compromise, dated November 15, 2021, for quashing all consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.
The Bench was told that the FIR was registered on a woman’s complaint alleging that her son had died under mysterious circumstances at a dargah. His life could have been saved had proper treatment been given to him. Going into the background of the matter, the woman had submitted that her 29-year-old son had told her on September 16, 2021, that he had been called by the petitioner-baba to the dargah. As such, he was going with another person to meet him. The victim’s friend telephonically told the complainant’s kin that his blood pressure had dipped and they were taking him to a doctor. Thereafter, again a call was received that the victim had expired.
After hearing the contentions and going through the documents, Justice Kumar asserted that the court could also not lose sight of the scenario where the informant with the passage of time might succumb to various circumstances and factors, open and other threats, besides inducements. But such factors were not required to be gone into at the present stage.
Justice Kumar also referred to a Supreme Court judgment asserting that the settlement between the offender and the victim could have no legal sanction in serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, offences of mental depravity under the IPC, offences of moral turpitude under special statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Kumar asked the trial court to decide the case only on the basis of evidence without being influenced by the facts in the compromise document and the supporting affidavit.
Refers to apex court judgment
Justice Namit Kumar referred to a Supreme Court judgment asserting that the settlement between the offender and the victim could have no legal sanction in serious offences such as murder, rape and dacoity
Most Read In 24 Hours
Don't MissView All
Adani Group stocks have taken a beating on the bourses after...
Income tax rebate limit raised to Rs 7 lakh; insurance polic...
Fully imported cars, including electric vehicles, and those ...
21 skiers were rescued from the slopes that has been declare...
In her Budget Speech, the minister also announces a new smal...