Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Salendra Singh and others; Respondents – State of Haryana and anr.
  • FIR Details: FIR No.0533 dated 12‑Nov‑2024 registered under Section 105, 3(5), 324(4) of the BNS Act, 2023 (also invoking Section 304A IPC) at Police Station City Palwal, District Palwal.
  • Background: The FIR arose from an explosion in an underground PNG gas pipeline of Adani Gas while PWD employees and a JCB driver were digging a water pipeline near a tea shop owned by the deceased, Hari Chand (brother of petitioner Laxman). The explosion caused fire, leading to Hari Chand’s death.
  • Petitioner's Prayer: Quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of a compromise deed dated 05‑Feb‑2025, with payments made to the victim’s family.
  • Counsel Arguments: Petitioner's counsel relied on several prior judgments (e.g., Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Karamjit Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab, etc.) arguing that compromise should permit quashing.
  • State’s Argument: The offence under Section 304A IPC cannot be quashed by compromise; cited judgments including Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (2016), Rajesh Kumar v. State of Punjab (2022), Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024), and Pardeep Kumar Tomar v. State of Haryana (2026).
  • Complainant/Respondent No.2: Supported the compromise and had no objection to quashing the FIR.

Court Reasoning

  • The Court reiterated the principle from Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab that allowing a compromise in offences under Section 304A would encourage reckless conduct and undermine societal interests.
  • It emphasized that compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. is not a mitigating factor for such offences and cannot substitute an adequate sentence.
  • While acknowledging the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court held that this power cannot be exercised to quash a Section 304A FIR solely on the basis of a settlement.
  • The Court cited multiple precedents confirming that offences causing death are not private matters and cannot be compounded post‑conviction.
  • The Court noted that the compromise does not erase the allegations of criminal negligence nor the public‑safety concerns.

Final Outcome

  • The petition seeking quash of FIR No.0533 and related charge‑sheet is dismissed.
  • The FIR and charge‑sheet remain operative; the prosecution will continue in accordance with law.
  • All pending applications, if any, are ordered disposed of.
  • The Court observed that co‑accused Rahul Kumar and Satya Dev’s earlier petitions for quashing (CRM‑M‑26218‑2025) were also dismissed on merits (order dated 12‑Mar‑2026).
  • Petitioners retain the right to file a fresh petition for quashing on merits, if advised.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Section 304A IPC, Compromise in Criminal Cases