At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

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