10/17/2019 Section 304A IPC: Can The HC Quash Proceedings If A Settlement Is Reached Between The Accused And The

used And The Victim's Family?

Section 304A IPC: Can The HC Quash Proceedings If A

Settlement Is Reached Between The Accused And The
Victim's Family?
BY: KARAN TRIPATHI
4 Sep 2019 2:27 PM

1.9K
SHARES

1.9K Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram LinkedIn More

SHARES

The application of section 304A of the IPC, which lays down the offence of causing
death by negligence, has been marked with several debates. The most resounding,
and the most sensitive of these debates is the one which puts forward this question -
Can the High Court, under its inherent powers conferred by section 482 of CrPC,
quash the proceedings under section 304A if there exists a settlement between the
accused and the victim's legal representatives.

https://www.livelaw.in/columns/section-304a-ipc-can-the-hc-quash-proceedings-if-a-settlement-is-reached-between-the-accused-and-the-victims-family… 1/7
10/17/2019 Section 304A IPC: Can The HC Quash Proceedings If A Settlement Is Reached Between The Accused And The Victim's Family?

Before we delve into this particular debate, let's have a relook at what the section
actually states. It reads as:

'Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.'

The dilemma surrounding section 304A stems from the fact that it involves a
combination of a harm which is as grave as death with a sentence which is relatively
very light. However, it's a settled principle of law that merely an act of rashness
which has remote connection with the death would not attract section 304A. It has
to be an act of 'culpable rashness or negligence', which in Namadevan v. State of
Madras, was defined as an act which implies the consciousness that the intended
consequences would surely ensue. Moreover, as it was also noted by the Supreme
Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab that the concept of negligence under
section 304A is different and is much higher in degree than that contemplated as
civil wrong.
1.9K
SHARES

It is this ambiguity surrounding the words 'gross negligence' coupled with the fact
that mens rea is not required to be proved, that makes dealing with cases coming
under this section a little peculiar. One such peculiarity is quashing of the case on
the ground of a compromise being reached between the accused and the legal
representatives of the victim.

Those who argue in favour of the quashing by the High Court under section 482 of
CrPC, usually put forward the following claims:

1. Since the heirs of victims are allowed to receive compensation under section 357A of
the CrPC, by drawing an analogy, legal heir or representative of the deceased is
competent to compound an offence or enter into a compromise with the accused.

2. There is a complete absence of mens rea or intention to commit an offence under

Section 304-A IPC, thus rendering it to be an offence in the nature of a private

https://www.livelaw.in/columns/section-304a-ipc-can-the-hc-quash-proceedings-if-a-settlement-is-reached-between-the-accused-and-the-victims-family… 2/7
10/17/2019 Section 304A IPC: Can The HC Quash Proceedings If A Settlement Is Reached Between The Accused And The Victim's Family?

dispute. Therefore, once a compromise has been arrived at between the accused and
the legal representatives of the deceased there can be no bar to the quashing of the
criminal proceedings against the accused

3. Imprisonment provided for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC is merely
two years or fine or both and the offence, triable by a Magistrate, is a bailable one,
coupled with the fact that there is no intention of committing any injury or loss to
anyone it is definitely not a heinous crime.

4. Once an offence under Section 307 which is undoubtedly a serious and grave offence
can be quashed on the basis of a settlement in given situations, there should be no
bar in permitting the quashing of proceedings under Section 304-A solely on the
basis of a settlement between the parties.

On the other hand, those who stand against the quashing argue the following:

1. Offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC cannot be termed to be an offence

private in nature. It is a serious offence which impacts the fabric of society.
1.9K
SHARES
2. The offence in question is non-compoundable.

3. The victim in this case is obviously not available, therefore, it would not be in the
fitness of things to permit quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 304-A
IPC on the basis of settlement

4. Power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is plenary and very wide but at the same time such
power would be exercised sparingly with the guiding factor being to secure the ends
of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court.

5. Allowing the settlement exception, would open the floodgates of affluent people
using their money to find a way out of their negligent act to escape the law. Since,
the same is not even an option for an indigent person, allowing such an exception
becomes inherently discriminatory and arbitrary.

Many High Courts have ruled both in favour and against the idea of allowing
quashing of proceedings under 304A by the virtue of a settlement being reached
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/section-304a-ipc-can-the-hc-quash-proceedings-if-a-settlement-is-reached-between-the-accused-and-the-victims-family… 3/7
10/17/2019 Section 304A IPC: Can The HC Quash Proceedings If A Settlement Is Reached Between The Accused And The Victim's Family?

between the parties. Therefore, it becomes significant to see what the apex court has
ruled in matters that have an impact on the present issue.

While reversing the order of the High Court which had reduced the sentence by
virtue of increasing the compensation, the apex court categorically opined in Sadha
Singh v. State of Punjab that allowing such a trend would mean that if your pockets
can afford it, commit a serious crime, offer to pay a heavy fine, and escape the tenets
of law. 'Power of wealth need not extend to overawe the court', it said. Moreover, in
Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh it was held that compensation granted to the aggrieved
by the accused cannot be viewed as a trade-off for the prosecution of the accused
persons.

In light of above-mentioned judgements, it becomes important two major

contentions of those who say that proceedings under section 304A should be
quashed upon a settlement being reached between the parties.

1. Private v. Public Offence

1.9K
SHARES

It is seldom argued that death caused by negligence is a private affair between the
accused and the family of the victim and hence can be addressed by the said parties
through an agreement. However, the apex court while addressing the nature of
offences laid down in section 304A in State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basangouda
Aregoudar categorically noted that giving sentence in such cases is the most public
face of the criminal justice system and it has due regard to the larger interest of the
society. Moreover in Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, the deterrent principle of
punishing individuals for their reckless act was reiterated by saying that the
punishment shall instill a fear in the psyche of the person that if he has committed
an offence under this section, he cannot escape from a jail sentence.

2. Fair Compensation for the Legal Representatives of the Victim As Relief

Those who support quashing usually argues that if the FIR is quashed, the legal heirs
who already have the agony of losing a family member are given some monetary

https://www.livelaw.in/columns/section-304a-ipc-can-the-hc-quash-proceedings-if-a-settlement-is-reached-between-the-accused-and-the-victims-family… 4/7
10/17/2019 Section 304A IPC: Can The HC Quash Proceedings If A Settlement Is Reached Between The Accused And The Victim's Family?

relief, which is a major relief for a person belonging to an underprivileged section of

society.

This concern can be easily addressed without taking the quashing route. Under
multiple legislations such as Motor Vehicles Act, Workmen Compensation Act,
Employees Compensation Act, etc. it is the duty of the state to ensure adequate
compensation to the victim (which includes victim's heirs). Another route is the
Victim Compensation Scheme which is formulated under section 357A of CrPC.

Therefore, it becomes amply clear that the grant of compensation to the

representatives of the victim has to be given as additional relief and not as a
substitute to a sentence awarded under the section. If the legislature wanted the
compensation to foreclose the proceedings under section 304A, the same could've
been explicitly mentioned under section 357A.

After considering the catena of judgments passed by the Supreme Court as well as
the various High Courts, it can be rightly submitted that a settlement agreement
1.9K
cannot be an alternative to a trial for a death caused by negligence under section
SHARES

304A of the IPC. Both the legislature and the judiciary have recognised it to be a
serious crime and the same or reflected in the fact that it is not listed as one of the
offences that can be compounded by the court. It is also important to note that the
nature of offence under section 304A is different from the list of offences for which
the High Court can quash the proceedings despite them not being a compoundable
offence as envisaged in Gian Singh v. State of c Punjab.

Similarly, in Bhajan Lal Sharma v. State, Delhi High Court in refusing quashing,
distinguished Gian Singh, supra, as stating that such a quashing in itself is an abuse
of process, as a strong signal was necessary to builders in particular that gross
negligence leading to death can't be solved merely by some compensation, rather
than taking appropriate measures. It was reiterated that criminal proceedings were
not a vindication of private grievance.

https://www.livelaw.in/columns/section-304a-ipc-can-the-hc-quash-proceedings-if-a-settlement-is-reached-between-the-accused-and-the-victims-family… 5/7
10/17/2019 Section 304A IPC: Can The HC Quash Proceedings If A Settlement Is Reached Between The Accused And The Victim's Family?

It can also be submitted that if offences under section 304A are allowed to be
quashed through a settlement, and without a trial, the punishment would lose its
communicative or deterrent function and it would wield unreasonable and arbitrary
power in the hands of those who have deep pockets to get away from causing a death
of an individual. It would reduce the value of human life to a mere monetary
settlement.

The concern of trivial cases of negligence being tried under this section is
unwarranted, as it was clearly shown above, that the qualification threshold of
section 304A is considerably high and the impugned act needs to have a proximate
relationship to the death caused, for the section to be invoked.

Therefore, quashing the FIR and foreclosing the possibility of a trial takes away the
possibility of justice being realised. Such quashing, at the initial stage of
investigation and that too without a trial, would scuttle the prosecution and the
degree of seriousness of the offence, or its possible impact on the society, would
never be accessed fairly. Society is a significant stakeholder in deaths caused by
1.9K
SHARES

reckless behaviour, because if negligent persons are allowed to get away by paying a
certain amount, they would never rehabilitate and would be prone to committing
more such acts in future. To argue that gross negligence leading to death be left to
the unequal bargaining powers of poor victims' families and those responsible is an
extreme view even for those upholding the economic function of law.

To conclude, it is significant for the High Court, which is asked to exercise its
inherent powers under section 482 of CrPC, that such power should be exercised
with great care and caution and in the interest of justice. The concerned High Court
shall be aware that if quashing is allowed for deaths caused by negligence by the
virtue of a settlement, it would set a precedent which would scuffle the voices of
those who are underprivileged and are coerced or unduly influenced to enter into
such agreements.

https://www.livelaw.in/columns/section-304a-ipc-can-the-hc-quash-proceedings-if-a-settlement-is-reached-between-the-accused-and-the-victims-family… 6/7
10/17/2019 Section 304A IPC: Can The HC Quash Proceedings If A Settlement Is Reached Between The Accused And The Victim's Family?

Such imbalance of convenience, which favours the rich and detriments the poor, will
send forth a dangerous message that justice, despite all that is promised, can be
compromised when money is allowed to settle interests.

[The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The
facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of LiveLaw and
LiveLaw does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same]
Topics : Section 304A IPC | High Court

1.9K
SHARES

https://www.livelaw.in/columns/section-304a-ipc-can-the-hc-quash-proceedings-if-a-settlement-is-reached-between-the-accused-and-the-victims-family… 7/7