Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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