Read Order: Aman Lohan and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Monika Rahar

New Delhi, April 2, 2022: While dismissing a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR on the ground that the parties entered into a compromise to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony, the Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara held that without there being a background of friendship, closeness of family or strong bonds the compromise deed was meaningless to permit compounding of a heinous offence punishable under section 307 IPC.

Primarily, the Court was dealing with a petition under Section 482 CrPC, in respect of an FIR registered against the accused under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 341 IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959, on the ground of a compromise with the victim. 

On March 21, 2022, the victim/ aggrieved person (Deepak Kumar) and the complainant (Amit Kumar)  stated before Special Judge Kaithal that they did not want to pursue the FIR against the accused, and as per the concerned court’s report, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat. 

Strongly opposing this compromise between the parties, the State  counsel sought the dismissal of the petition because of the heinous nature of the offence. 

The Court at the very outset perused the compromise deed. After such perusal of the contents of the compromise and victims’ statements about the compromise, the Court observed that the compromise deed stated that the parties entered into a compromise to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony. 

The Bench said, “A perusal of the contents of the compromise and victims’ statements about compromise state that they entered into a compromise to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony. However, without the background of friendship, the closeness of family, strong bonds, or being in relations, this explanation is meaningless to permit compounding of a heinous offence punishable under section 307 IPC, where the sentence can run to imprisonment for life.”

Thus, after referring to a plethora of precedents, the Court came to the conclusion that the contents of the compromise deed and its objectives pointed toward its rejection.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment