No right vested with accused seeking quashing of FIR based upon compromise; Court must be satisfied that quashing would be justified to prevent abuse of process of law: P&H HC

Read Order: Salim And Another v. State Of Haryana And Another 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 11, 2022: While dealing with the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that no right is vested with the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR based upon compromise but quashing can be done when the Court is satisfied that the quashing would be justified in order to prevent the abuse of the process of law. 

The bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri added, “It is a settled law that quashing of an FIR based upon compromise cannot be made in a mechanical manner and the facts and circumstances of each and every case have to be seen and the FIR should not quashed merely on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties.”

The Court was dealing with a petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR registered against the petitioners under sections 323, 307, 379-B, 34 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 on the basis of a compromise deed entered into between the parties. 

The FIR in question was registered on the complaint of the complainant alleging that he lent a certain sum of money to one of the petitioners who criminally intimidated the complainant on being asked to return the said amount. On the day of crime, both the petitioners physically assaulted the complainant in his office and the second petitioner at the instance of the first petitioner, fired a gun shot at the complainant with an attempt to kill him. However, on the intervention of one of the complainant’s neighbours, the first petitioner fled away while the second petitioner was apprehended then and there. Later on, a compromise was entered into between the parties. 

On the basis of the compromise deed, the petitioners’ counsel contended that no useful purpose would be served in case further prosecution was to be carried out, thus, he advanced a case for quashing of the FIR. To substantiate his case, the counsel placed reliance on the case of Kanwardeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others, CRM-M-36087 of 2010, to contend that when there is a compromise which has been arrived at between the parties and no injury was caused, then the FIR could be quashed based on the compromise. 

The State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the quashing of the FIR by contending that both the accused-petitioners admitted the commission of the offence as also the manner in which it was committed. The counsel further submitted the case before the trial court was fixed for defence evidence and arguments, therefore, citing the dual grounds of the case being at the fag end of the trial and the deposit of an unlicenced country made pistol by the complainant to the police while lodging the FIR, the counsel opposed the Petition.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court was of the opinion that there was nothing to show that the non-quashing of the FIR would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The above-stated opinion of the court was based on the fact that in this case, an unlicenced country made pistol was deposited to the police by the complainant while lodging the FIR and that the matter was at the fag end of the trial where all the prosecution witnesses were already examined. 

Thus, the Petition was dismissed.