© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Punjab Haryana HC ruling: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that a “victim can’t be a forgotten entity” and rejected a plea to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings in a rash and negligent driving case that resulted in a man’s death even though the family member of the deceased and the accused had reached a settlement.
While terming the compromise as antithetical, Justice Sumeet Goel observed, “Compromising such cases on the ground of mutual accord risks undermining the public confidence in the justice delivery system and jeopardising the larger interest of law enforcement.”
The order highlighted that the case gave rise to the “probable erosion of judicial integrity” when criminal proceedings, particularly involving grave and serious offences, are quashed solely on the basis of a compromise between rival parties.
The court said criminal jurisprudence was acquisitive and places the crime and criminal act at its epicentre.
Noting that the basis and essential element for quashing an FIR and criminal proceedings was the victim’s consent, the court said that a victim cannot be considered as a “forgotten entity” once the criminal process has been set in motion.
The court said the “terminus of the criminal justice system must extend beyond the mere safeguarding of the rights of the accused” and must include the “preservation and effective vindication of the rights of a victim”.
Invoking the principles of victimology, the judge observed that in offences resulting in death, the person who dies is the real victim and therefore the surviving family members of the person, including the father, cannot adorn the “mantle of primary victim” for the purpose of settlement.
Justice Goel quoted the latin maxim as saying, “Quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa, esse non potest”, and said, “All inherent powers of the High Court are the powers necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice.”
He also quoted another maxim as saying, “Ex debito justitiae”, meaning “such powers are given to do real and substantial justice, which is the only purpose of existence of the high court”.
The incident took place in June, 2022, when one Satnam Singh allegedly knocked down one Gurjit Singh. Gurjit, however, succumbed to his injuries while being rushed to the hospital. Following his death, a case was registered against Satnam.
Following the investigation and trial, a Moga court convicted Satnam under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC. Later, a compromise was reached between Satnam and the victim’s father, Harbhajan Singh, under which an amount of Rs 13 lakh was to be paid to the father.
Satnam, as a result, filed a plea before the high court for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings, including the conviction, based on the compromise deed.
Advocate Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, representing the accused, argued that the FIR was lodged on account of a misunderstanding which was eventually resolved by the parties. Sidhu sought the quashing in order to “ensure peace and harmony” between the accused and the kin of the victim.
He also contended that the continuity of the criminal proceeding would not serve a useful purpose.
The father’s counsel, advocate Kirandeep Kaur also ratified the compromise and said there would be no objection if the FIR and the criminal proceedings against Stnam were quashed.
Additional advocate general Amit Kumar Goyal, on the other hand, argued that the case concerned the offence under Section 304A, in which Gurjit was the real victim and hence any compromise or settlement reached with the family members or legal heirs of Singh, could not absolve the offender, nor should it be considered as a mitigating factor, sufficient, to warrant the quashing of such an FIR, on the basis of compromise.
The court, therefore, dismissed this plea on November 20.
