The State has
filed the present appeal impugning the order passed by the High Court
whereby the petition 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 and the accused.
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 FIR in question was registered. Respondent
no.1 at the relevant point of time was working as100 veterinary doctor in
Sonipat Animal Husbandry Department.
Immediately after registration
of the FIR while the matter was still under investigation,120 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 the accused as well as the 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 that200 the FIR does not deserve to be
quashed as there are serious allegations against the respondent no.1.
However, the High Court quashed the FIR merely because the complainant
had compromised the matter with the accused. The aforesaid order is impugned240 by the State before this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that once on the basis of a complaint submitted to the Police, an FIR
had been registered with the allegations that the respondent no.1 was involved
in commission of serious offences during her service career and the matter was
still under investigation, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction300 in quashing the FIR, merely
because the complainant had compromised the matter with the accused.
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 as360 cognizable offence was found to have been committed by the
respondent no.1. The stand taken by the State before the High Court was not
even considered.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that400 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 respondent no.1 was merely to harass her, who had otherwise exposed
various irregularities in the Animal Husbandry Department. Even in the departmental
proceedings, the respondent no.1 has been exonerated after due
enquiry. If FIR is allowed to be proceeded480 with, it will be nothing
else but an abuse of process of law. The High Court has not committed any500 error in the exercise of jurisdiction
to quash the FIR.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
book. In the case in hand, on the basis of information received
under the Right to Information Act, 2015 the respondent no.2 filed complaint to
the police, on the basis of which FIR in question was registered. Immediately
after registration of FIR, respondent no.1 filed a petition before the High
Court seeking quashing thereof, on the basis of the compromise with the
complainant, which was allowed by the High Court. A perusal of the contents
of the FIR600 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.
The allegations
are with reference to withdrawal of salary for the period the respondent
no.1 was on unauthorized foreign trips and also withdrawal of salary by
producing false medical certificates. When the FIR in question was
quashed, the matter was still being investigated by the police. It was even so
submitted by the State in its reply to700 the quashing petition in the High
Court.
In the facts of
the present case after setting the criminal machinery into720 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
when the FIR had been registered. 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
compromise800 entered into between the complainant and the accused, the FIR was
quashed. The order cannot be legally sustained. The allegations against the
accused are of defrauding the State. How can such a matter be
settled on the basis of a840 compromise between two private individuals? The simple answer is that
it cannot be done.
The argument
raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that in the departmental
proceedings initiated on the same ground, she has already been
exonerated is merely to be noticed as this may be a defence of the accused,
which was not at all the900 ground on the basis of which the FIR in question was
quashed, at the stage of investigation.
For the reasons
mentioned above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by
the High Court is set aside. The petition filed by the respondent no.1
seeking quashing of the FIR in question on the basis of compromise is
dismissed.960
