Compromise Cannot Silence the Dead: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash 304-A FIR in Factory Death Case
Case Name: Pradeep Kumar Tomar and Another v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Decision: 19 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-24420-2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an FIR under Section 304-A IPC involving death due to alleged criminal negligence cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant or legal heirs of the deceased. The Court reiterated that in cases where the primary victim has lost his life, a private settlement cannot override societal interest or the deterrent function of criminal law.
Summary: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of FIR No. 0392 dated 07.10.2021 registered under Section 304-A IPC at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, along with the charge-sheet dated 24.10.2021, on the basis of a compromise deed dated 09.05.2023 .
The FIR arose from an incident dated 06.10.2021 wherein two workmen, Om and Rampal, allegedly fell from a shuttering structure at a factory site. Om died immediately, while Rampal later succumbed to his injuries . The petitioners contended that they were merely contractual employees with no supervisory role, that the accident was purely accidental, and that they had extended financial assistance of ₹3 lakhs each to the families of the deceased.
The complainant supported the compromise, stating that the FIR had been lodged under misunderstanding and local influence.
Opposing the petition, the State argued that the offence under Section 304-A IPC is non-compoundable and relates to criminal negligence resulting in loss of human life, which has direct societal implications.
The Court undertook an extensive analysis of the law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, referring to precedents including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan . It further relied upon its earlier decision in Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab (2025), holding that offences under Section 304-A IPC cannot be quashed on compromise because the deceased is the real victim and cannot consent to settlement .
The Court emphasized that in cases of homicidal negligence, the deceased is the primary aggrieved party. Legal heirs cannot “condone” the death on behalf of the deceased. To permit quashing on the basis of financial settlement would commodify criminal liability and erode public confidence in the justice system.
Rejecting the argument that a factory accident stands on a different footing from a road accident, the Court held that the legal principle remains the same: once a life is lost due to alleged negligence, the offence transcends private dispute and becomes a matter of societal concern .
The Court further held that questions regarding the petitioners’ role, absence of negligence, or placement of other accused in Column No. II are matters of defence to be adjudicated during trial, not grounds for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Decision: The petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 0392 of 2021 under Section 304-A IPC on the basis of compromise was dismissed. The trial Court was directed to proceed independently, uninfluenced by observations in the order .