LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus DR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1004 : 2024 INSC 263 State of Haryana v. Dr. Ritu Singh and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2024) 22 March 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration FIR against the accused-employee by the complainant, for defrauding the State-employer, if can be quashed on basis of a “compromise” between the complainant and the accused. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR – FIR against the accused-employee by the complainant for defrauding the State-employer – Allegations with reference to withdrawal of salary for the period the accused-employee was on unauthorized foreign trips and also withdrawal of salary by producing false medical certificates – FIR quashed by the High Court on basis of a “compromise” between the complainant and the accused – Sustainability: Held: Order not legally sustainable – Allegations against the accused are of defrauding the State – Such a matter cannot be settled on the basis of a “compromise” between two private individuals – Perusal of the contents of the FIR would show that it was not the complainant who was the victim with reference to the allegations made in the complaint to the police, to enable the High Court to exercise the power to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise – When the FIR was quashed the matter was still being investigated by the police – After setting the criminal machinery into motion, which had relevance with the fraud allegedly committed by the employee with her employer, the complainant did not have any locus to compromise the matter with the accused when the FIR had been registered – Even the High Court failed to consider that aspect of the matter – Also the reply filed by the State to the quashing petition was not referred to – Submission that in the departmental proceedings initiated on the same ground, employee has already been exonerated is merely to be noticed – Thus, impugned order passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 7-9] [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1005 State of Haryana v. Dr. Ritu Singh and Another List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords FIR; Quashing of FIR; Compromise between two private individuals; Defrauding the State. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2019 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 51493 of 2018 Appearances for Parties Deepak Thukral, A.A.G., Gautam Sharma, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Appellant. Aayush Agarwala, M/S. PBA Legal, Nitin Saluja, Ms. Pranya Madan, Nischal Tripathi, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The State has filed the present appeal impugning the order1 passed by the High Court2 whereby the petition3 filed by the respondent no.1 seeking quashing of the FIR was allowed and the same was quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the complainant-respondent no.2 and the accused-respondent no.1. 2. Briefly stated, the facts available on record are that a complaint was filed by the respondent no.2 with the police alleging certain offences committed by the respondent no.1, on the basis of which FIR4 in question was registered. Respondent no.1 at the relevant point of time was working as veterinary doctor in Policlinic, Sonipat 1 Dated 27.02.2019 2 High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-51493 of 2018 4 FIR No.0116 dated 12.05.2018, Police Station Barauda, Dist. Sonipat, Haryana 1006 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Animal Husbandry Department. Immediately, after registration of the FIR while the matter was still under investigation, the respondent no.1 filed a petition in the High Court seeking quashing thereof. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court shows that respondent no.1-accused as well as respondent no.2-complainant submitted before the High Court that the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, hence, the FIR may be quashed on the basis of the compromise. Even though in the reply filed by the State to the quashing petition, the stand taken was that the FIR does not deserve be quashed as there are serious allegations against the respondent no.1-accused. However, still the High Court merely because the complainant had compromised the matter with the respondent no.1-accused, quashed the FIR. The af
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.