Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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