Ranveer Kumar @ Ranveer Yadav vs State of Punjab and another

"16.1.

Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2.

The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is noncompoundable.

16.3.

In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4.

While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5.

The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6.

In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7.

As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8.

Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9.

In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10.

There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

"The question formulated for consideration of a larger Bench was whether the crime registered under Section 304-A IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at by the legal heir/legal representative of the victim/deceased with the offender.

XX XX XX

XX XX XX

In the facts and circumstances of the case it would indeed be paradoxical and incorrect to hold that the offence under Section 304-A 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.

XX XX XX

Reference is thus answered in the negative as there can be no quashing of an offence registered under Section 304-A and subsequent proceedings, solely on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the legal heirs/representatives of the victim (deceased) and the accused.”

“xx xxx xxxx

13.

Conceptually; FIR-complainant/informant is different from victim, though, in a given case, they may be same person. In a case pertaining to an offence, as a result whereof a death has occurred, it is the deceased who is the real victim. In such a case, the surviving family members of the deceased including the spouse/parents/children/guardian/care-giver etc. nay the FIR-complainant/informant cannot adorn the mantle of primary victim for purpose of settlement/compromise. The jurisprudential foundation for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise, rests upon the absence of grievance by the victim, against the accused. In offence under Section 304-A of the IPC/Section 106 of BNS involving death due to rash and negligent act/ driving, the primary victim is the deceased, whose demise is directly attributable to the accused’s alleged rash and negligent act/ driving. The deceased, being the primary aggrieved party (i.e. the real victim), is no longer capable of expressing consent or grievance, rendering any compromise with the informant or complainant incongruous with this foundational principle. A settlement between the accused and the complainant, who merely initiated the criminal process, fails to satisfy the underlying rationale for such a quashing to succeed. It disregards the irreversible harm inflicted upon the deceased and the broader societal interest implicated in crime(s) of this gravity. Thus, permitting quashing in such instances undermines the rule of law and trivializes the serious nature of the offence, warranting judicial circumspection and restraint.

Xx xx xx xx

15.

As a result of above-said rumination, it is clear nay crystal clear that an FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) under Section 304- A of the IPC/Section 106 of the BNS cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise/settlement arrived at between the accused on one hand and FIR-complainant/informant/surviving family of the victim (including spouse/parents/children/guardian/care-giver etc.) on the other hand. Even if credence is sought to be lend to such a compromise/settlement, by way of raising plea(s) on merits, including the plea that the offence of Section 304-A of the IPC /Section 106 of the BNS is not made out in the facts/circumstances of a given case, still such petition ought to be rejected. ”