While refusing to quash an FIR in a culpable homicide case on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that the loss of human life cannot be ignored or forgotten from the mind.
The single-judge bench of Justice Namit Kumar refused to grant the relief as sought by the parties despite their claim that they stood pacified and were living in peaceful co-existence.
The court made it clear that the sight of the fact could not be lost that with the passage of time, the informant might have succumbed to various circumstances and factors besides open and other threats and inducements.
The FIR in the matter was lodged by a woman who alleged that her son had died under mysterious circumstances at a dargah. In her complaint, she stated that on the morning of September 16, 2021, her 29-year-old son told her that he had been called by the accused/petitioner no. 1-baba at a dargah and he was going there with another man-petitioner no. 2.
Later, a friend of the victim telephonically told the woman’s other son that the blood pressure of the victim had dipped and they were taking him to a doctor. Thereafter, again a call was received by the woman that her son had expired and the petitioners brought the victim’s dead body to her house.
She claimed that had her son been given proper treatment, his life could have been saved by the accused-petitioners.
Thereafter, on the basis of the woman’s complaint, an FIR was registered under sections 304, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Through the present plea filed under section 482 of CrPC, the accused-petitioners sought direction to quash the FIR. Their counsel apprised the court that the parties had reached an amicable settlement vide the compromise deed dated November 15, 2021; therefore, the petition deserved to be allowed.
The court, however, referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 wherein the top court had held that “in respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all”.
In light of this, the court held the petition to quash FIR on the basis of compromise between parties liable to be dismissed. However, it clarified that the prosecution proceedings may continue unaffected/influenced by any observation made in the order.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment