Read Order: Rohit @ Mirchi v. State Of Haryana 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, June 4, 2022: While dealing with a bail plea of an accused involved in a matter of physical abuse and abduction of the complainant’s brother, who later committed suicide, the Punjab and Haryana High Court  has held that it would be a debatable issue as to whether the FIR involving offences of abduction and snatching can be quashed on the basis of compromise. 

Be that as it may, the compromise cannot be taken as a ground at this stage for grant of bail“, asserted Justice Avneesh Jhingan, while also adding, “The allegations in the present FIR are serious, there are chances of the complainant party being influenced, especially when other co-accused are yet to be arrested and compromise relied upon is an indicator of complainant being approached.”

The Court was dealing with a petition seeking regular bail in an FIR registered against the petitioner under Sections 147, 149, 323, 365, 379-A IPC (later on Sections 341, 120-B, 379-B IPC were added, while Section 379-A IPC was deleted).

The FIR was registered on the statement of one Damanjeet, alleging that Tarun and Mohit along with eight to ten other accused persons assaulted his brother  and took him in the Swift Dezire car. 

Petitioner-Rohit @ Mirchi was named by the victim in a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

The case of the petitioner’s counsel was that the petitioner was in custody since March 11, 2022, and that he was not named in the FIR. It was further argued that the matter was compromised between the parties and a petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise was filed. 

Also, the Counsel contended that in the impugned order, prayer of the petitioner for the grant of bail to him was declined on the ground that the victim later committed suicide due to the beatings given in the incident, which, the Counsel termed to be factually wrong. 

He further submitted that when the victim committed suicide, a separate FIR was registered in which the petitioner was not named. 

On the contrary, the counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer for grant of bail, submitted that the Verna car used in the incident was recovered from the petitioner. It was argued that the allegations in the FIR were serious as it was a case of abduction and snatching. 

It was also her submission that as per the case set up, the offences committed were heinous and the FIR could not be quashed on the basis of compromise. Lastly, she argued that the petitioner was specifically named by the injured.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed that although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, yet the fact that he was named by the victim in a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., could not be lost sight of. 

Further Justice Jhingan added that the evidentiary value of the statement would be subject-matter of trial and that it would be a debatable issue as to whether the FIR involving offences of abduction and snatching can be quashed on the basis of compromise. 

Be that as it may, the compromise cannot be taken as a ground at this stage for grant of bail, the Bench held. 

Also, the fact that the petitioner was not named in the subsequent FIR registered on committing suicide by the victim, was of no substance in the opinion of the Court, for the  deciding the bail plea in the present case.

The allegations in the present FIR are serious, there are chances of the complainant party being influenced, especially when other co-accused are yet to be arrested and compromise relied upon is an indicator of the complainant being approached.  Thus, the relief of bail was denied.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment