Deputy Registrar Of Chits Competent To Act As Arbitrator And Issue Recovery Certificates; Not Limited To Registrar Alone: Telangana High Court Custody With Biological Mother Presumed Lawful; Writ Of Habeas Corpus Not A Remedy To Enforce Foreign Court’s Return Orders: Bombay High Court Ocular Testimony Of Victim Prevails Over Medical Evidence In Rape Cases If Found Credible: Allahabad High Court Condonation Of Delay Should Follow Justice-Oriented Liberal Approach, Unintentional Delay Shouldn't Block Justice: Calcutta High Court Digital Banking Fraud: Clicking Suspicious Links Constitutes Customer Negligence; Liability Cannot Be Fastened On Bank Without Forensic Evidence: Delhi High Court Vexatious Matrimonial Complaints Filed As Counterblast To Divorce Is Abuse Of Process; Allegations Against In-Laws Must Be Specific: Gujarat High Court Sale Deed Executed By Son During Father's Lifetime Based On Manipulated Records Is Void Ab Initio: Karnataka High Court Charge Sheet E-Filed After Court Hours Deemed Filed Next Day; Accused Entitled To Default Bail: Kerala High Court Landowners Can't Use Antedated Stamp Papers To Defeat Ceiling Limits; Section 22 Land Reforms Act Prevails Over Registration Act: Madras High Court Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention Despite Suspension Of Sentence Mere Existence Of Dargah Doesn't Grant Jurisdiction To Waqf Board; Statutory Survey Under Sections 4 & 5 Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Sets Aside Interim Stay On Delhi Race Club Eviction; Says Courts Can't Halt Statutory Proceedings Without Recording Finding On Prima Facie Case

High Court Denies FIR Quashing Based on Compromise in Heinous Offence Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh declined to quash an FIR based on a compromise reached between the parties involved in a family dispute. The petitioners had filed the petition seeking the quashing of FIR No. 530 dated 06.09.2022, which was registered at Police Station Gannaur, District Sonipat, under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 148, 149, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court, represented by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar, heard arguments from both sides and considered the specific and grave allegations against the petitioners. The FIR alleged that petitioner No. 1 had fired multiple shots with the intention to kill the complainant. The court noted that the recovery of fired cartridges further substantiated the seriousness of the offence.

While the petitioners relied on a compromise reached between the parties, the court, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments, emphasized that offences under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and the Arms Act fall under the category of heinous and serious offences, affecting society as a whole. The court also took into account petitioner No. 1's criminal record, which revealed involvement in six other cases.

Justice Namit Kumar, in the judgment, stated, "Offences under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and, therefore, are to be treated as a crime against society and not against the individual alone." The court concluded that the compromise did not warrant the quashing of the FIR and invoked Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code sparingly, dismissing the petition.

This judgment reinforces the principle that serious offences impacting society cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The decision serves as a reminder of the court's duty to consider the gravity of the offence and protect the interests of society, as stated in previous Supreme Court judgments.

Date of Decision: 06.07.2023

Pardeep and others vs State of Haryana and another

Latest Legal News