Punjab & Haryana HC denies plea for quashing of FIR after finding inconsistencies between FIR & compromise deed

Read Order: Narinder Singh & Another v. State of Punjab & Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 7, 2022: While dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of an FIR on the strength of a compromise deed between the injured complainant and the accused, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition on the dual grounds of absence of any valid reasons for entering into the compromise and inconsistencies between the complainant’s statement of the FIR and the statement given by him in the compromise deed. 

The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara held in this regard that the complainant made a statement on oath before the Trial Court in which he simply stated that he compromised the matter and did not intend any action but no reason was mentioned or given as to why the compromise was to be allowed and criminal proceedings were to be interrupted. 

The gist of the allegations against the petitioners was that the police recorded the statement of Inderjit Singh (complainant) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that in April, 2021 he along with his son and his partner were sitting in the Haveli. At this time, three vehicles stopped there and 10-12 unknown persons along with the accused- petitioner and his son alighted from the vehicles. The accused was carrying a double-barrel gun while his co-accused was holding a revolver, and they fired a shot in the air which injured the complainant.  

Based on this, an FIR under Sections 452, 307, 336, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered. During the pendency of the case, a compromise was entered into between the accused and the injured-complainants. Thus, the petitioners filed a petition for quashing of the said FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise with the victim, impleading the complainant as respondent.  

At the outset, the Court made reference to the relevant portions of the compromise deed wherein the complainant stated that they voluntarily effected a compromise with the accused and his son named as accused in the said FIR and that as per the compromise they did not intend to take any action in the matter of the said FIR against the accused.  

Thereafter, the Court perused the contents of the FIR and observed that in FIR it was stated that the petitioners were carrying the firearm and they fired upon him (complainant). However, the Court opined that the complainant took a somersault and he stated that the aforesaid persons put masks on their faces and he could not identify them. 

Thus, seeing this inconsistency, and referring to the affidavit which was the complainant’s statement on compromise, the Court was of the opinion, “Although the said affidavit might be a factor for consideration for grant of bail but it cannot be a factor in terminating the criminal proceedings altogether.”

Therefore, considering the contents of the compromise deed and its objectives, the Court was of the opinion that it pointed towards the rejection of the petition, in the light of the judicial precedents which were referred to by the Court.