Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said when the allegations against the accused are of defrauding the State, such a criminal case can't be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between two private individuals, the accused and the complainant.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal accordingly allowed an appeal filed by the Haryana government against a Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of February 27, 2019.

The respondent Dr Ritu Singh appointed as Veterinary Doctor at Policlinic Sonipat Animal Husbandry Department in year 2013-2014 was alleged to have visited foreign countries six-seven times without the permission of department. 

According to a complaint, during these foreign visits, she had shown her presence at State Veterinary Hospital Nizampur and also withdrew the salary from the treasury. 

The state counsel submitted once the FIR was registered with the allegations that the respondent was involved in commission of serious offences during her service career and the matter was still under investigation, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the FIR, merely because the complainant had compromised the matter with the accused-respondent no 1. 

After the FIR was registered or even before that, it was not the complainant only who was the sufferer, rather it was an offence against the State. The allegation against the respondent no 1 was of defrauding the State, her employer. The FIR was registered as cognizable offence. The stand taken by the State before the High Court was not even considered, the counsel said.

On the other hand, a counsel for the respondent no 1 submitted the complainant had no locus to involve in the issue. He had filed a complaint to the police with certain allegations with regard to her service career referring to certain documents, which were not privy to him. Registration of FIR against her was merely to harass her, as she had otherwise exposed various irregularities in the Animal Husbandry Department. 

Even in the departmental proceedings, she has been exonerated after due enquiry. If FIR is allowed to be proceeded with, it will be nothing else but an abuse of process of law. The High Court has not committed any error in the exercise of jurisdiction to quash the FIR, her counsel said.

In the facts of the present case, the bench said, after setting the criminal machinery into motion, which had relevance with the fraud allegedly committed by the respondent no 1 with her employer, the complainant did not have any locus to compromise the matter with the accused. Even the High Court had failed to consider that aspect of the matter. 

Even though the reply filed by the State to the quashing petition was taken on record but without even referring to the stand taken therein, merely on the basis of compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused, the FIR was quashed. The order cannot be legally sustained, the bench said.

"The allegations against the accused are of defrauding the State. How can such a matter be settled on the basis of a “compromise” between two private individuals? The simple answer is that it cannot be done," the bench added.

With regard to her argument that in the departmental proceedings initiated on the same ground, she has already been exonerated, the bench said, this may be a defence of the accused, which was not at all the ground on the basis of which the FIR in-question was quashed, at the stage of investigation.

The bench set aside the High Court's order quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise.

The court, however, clarified nothing said in the order would prejudice the case of the respondent no 1 for taking any defence in the proceedings against her at any appropriate stage.