“Deceased Is the Real Victim; Family Cannot Consent on His Behalf”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash Fatal Accident FIR Under Section 106 BNS on Compromise

Case Name: Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 7 September 2026

Citation: CRM-M-49904-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an FIR involving death caused by rash and negligent driving cannot be quashed merely because the accused has entered into a compromise with the complainant or the surviving family members of the deceased. An offence under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has a direct nexus with public safety, carries serious societal consequences and cannot be treated as a purely private dispute capable of being extinguished through settlement.

The Court held that in a fatal accident case, the deceased is the real and primary victim of the offence. Although the complainant and the deceased’s surviving family members may have initiated or supported the criminal proceedings, they cannot step into the deceased’s position and provide consent for compromising the offence. Since the deceased is no longer capable of expressing consent or withdrawing the grievance, a settlement between the accused and the surviving family cannot be treated as a legally sufficient basis for quashing the FIR.

The Court further held that permitting such settlements to terminate criminal proceedings would disregard the irreversible harm caused to the deceased, undermine the rule of law and trivialise an offence affecting society and public safety. Consequently, even a genuine and voluntary compromise with the deceased’s family cannot, by itself, justify quashing proceedings under Section 106 BNS.

Although the High Court possesses wide inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings, those powers must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. They may ordinarily be invoked in disputes predominantly private or civil in character, such as matrimonial, commercial, financial or family disputes, but not in prosecutions involving serious offences having a substantial impact upon society.

Summary: The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 479 dated 27 October 2024, registered under Sections 106, 281 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, together with all consequential proceedings. The petition was founded upon a compromise dated 12 June 2025 allegedly entered into between the parties. This was the petitioner’s second petition for quashing the FIR, the earlier petition having been dismissed as withdrawn on 14 November 2025.

The FIR was registered on the statement of Baljinder Singh. He stated that on 21 October 2024, his father Mohinder Singh, who worked as a security guard, left home on his bicycle for night duty. When he failed to return the following morning, the complainant submitted an application regarding his absence at Police Station Zirakpur.

During his search, the complainant learned that a young man had taken his father to Edmund Private Hospital, Zirakpur, after an accident. Owing to the seriousness of his condition, Mohinder Singh was referred to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. Two young men, identified as Jenny and Keshav, subsequently met the complainant at the hospital and disclosed that Mohinder Singh had met with an accident involving car No. HR-51-AU-1976 near Panchsheel Enclave at approximately 8:00 p.m. on 21 October 2024. Mohinder Singh later died during treatment.

The petitioner submitted that the fatal accident had occurred near Maryland Hotel/Petrol Pump on Chandigarh Road, Zirakpur. He argued that with the passage of time and the intervention of respectable members of society, the parties had amicably resolved the dispute. The complainant allegedly no longer had any grievance or suspicion against the petitioner, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

The State opposed the petition by contending that the High Court’s inherent powers could not be invoked to quash a prosecution involving the death of a person merely on the basis of a private compromise.

The High Court referred to Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, which distinguishes the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings from the statutory power to compound an offence. While non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed in appropriate cases, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, its societal impact and the public interest involved must remain central considerations.

The Court also relied upon the Division Bench decision in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, CRM-M-40769-2014, decided on 2 June 2016. That decision held that an offence under Section 304-A IPC resulting in death cannot be characterised as a private wrong and cannot be quashed solely because the accused has reached a settlement with the deceased’s legal heirs or representatives.

Reliance was further placed upon Pradeep Kumar Tomar and Another v. State of Haryana and Another, CRM-M-24420-2023, decided on 19 February 2026. In that case, the Court had explained that while the complainant, informant and victim may sometimes be the same person, they are conceptually distinct. Where an offence causes death, the deceased is the real victim. The surviving family members or the informant cannot assume the status of the primary victim for the purpose of granting consent to a settlement.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that Section 106 BNS concerns conduct directly affecting public safety and having serious consequences for society. The offence could not be reduced to a private disagreement between the petitioner and the deceased’s family. The compromise dated 12 June 2025 was therefore legally insufficient to justify the termination of criminal proceedings.

The Court reasoned that the deceased’s family could not provide the consent that only the deceased, as the primary victim, could have given. Since the fatal consequences of the alleged act were irreversible, granting judicial approval to such a settlement would disregard the nature of the harm and the broader societal interest in prosecuting serious road-safety offences.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR, on the basis of the compromise. The Court held that the fatal accident prosecution could not be quashed through a settlement between the accused and the deceased’s surviving family members.