Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Under Section 106 BNS on Basis of Compromise; Holds Death Due to Rash and Negligent Driving Is Crime Against Society
Case Name: Anmol v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-67238-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to quash an FIR registered for offences including Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to death caused by rash and negligent driving, despite a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Court held that in cases where death has occurred, the deceased is the real victim, and such offences cannot be treated as private disputes capable of being settled through compromise. The Court reiterated that offences resulting in loss of life are crimes against society and fall outside the permissible scope of quashing on the basis of settlement.
Summary: The petition was filed seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 281, 125(a), and 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise deed entered into between the accused and the complainant. The FIR arose from an incident in which a motorcycle was allegedly hit by a negligently driven vehicle, resulting in fatal injuries to one Rasid, who later succumbed to those injuries.
The petitioner contended that the dispute had been amicably resolved with the complainant and that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. It was urged that the compromise was voluntary and intended to maintain peace and harmony between the parties.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the offence involved culpable negligence resulting in death and that the real victim was the deceased, not the complainant who had merely set the criminal law in motion. Relying on settled jurisprudence, it was argued that such offences cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, as they have serious societal implications.
The Court undertook an extensive examination of the law governing quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, particularly in cases involving death. Placing reliance on authoritative precedents of the Supreme Court, including Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, and earlier decisions of the High Court, the Court held that offences under Section 304-A IPC or its statutory equivalent under Section 106 BNS stand on a distinct footing. The Court emphasized that the consent or settlement by the complainant or legal heirs cannot substitute the absence of grievance by the deceased victim, who alone is the primary aggrieved party.
The Court further observed that permitting quashing of such offences on the basis of compromise would erode public confidence in the criminal justice system and risk commodification of serious crimes through monetary settlements.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and refused to quash the FIR or the proceedings arising therefrom. It held that offences under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, involving death due to rash and negligent acts, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, as they constitute crimes against society.