MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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