Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of FIR in Fraud Case: State of Haryana vs. Dr. Ritu Singh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: March 22, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 263

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Can a compromise between a complainant and an accused be the sole basis for quashing a First Information Report (FIR), especially when the alleged offense involves defrauding the State? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court had quashed an FIR based on a compromise. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Rajesh Bindal, overturned this decision, emphasizing that when the offense is against the State, a compromise between private parties cannot be the sole basis for quashing an FIR. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 with the police, alleging that Respondent No. 1, a veterinary doctor in the Animal Husbandry Department, had committed certain offenses. Specifically, the complaint stated that Dr. Ritu Singh (Respondent No. 1) had made unauthorized foreign trips while marking her presence at her workplace, and had also submitted false medical certificates to withdraw her salary from the government treasury. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered on May 12, 2018, at Police Station Barauda, District Sonipat, Haryana. Following the registration of the FIR, Respondent No. 1 filed a petition in the High Court seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court, based on a compromise between Respondent No. 1 (the accused) and Respondent No. 2 (the complainant), quashed the FIR. The State of Haryana, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Arguments

Appellant (State of Haryana):

• The State argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the FIR merely because the complainant had compromised with the accused.
• The State contended that once an FIR is registered, it is not just a matter between the complainant and the accused, but an offense against the State, especially when the allegations involve defrauding the State.
• The State highlighted that the allegations against Dr. Ritu Singh were serious, involving fraud against her employer, and the matter was still under investigation.
• The State’s stand against quashing the FIR was not considered by the High Court.

Respondent No. 1 (Dr. Ritu Singh):

• Respondent No. 1 argued that the complainant had no locus to file the complaint, as the documents referred to were not privy to him.
• She claimed that the FIR was registered to harass her for exposing irregularities in the Animal Husbandry Department.
• She stated that she had been exonerated in departmental proceedings on the same grounds.
• Respondent No. 1 contended that allowing the FIR to proceed would be an abuse of the process of law and that the High Court had not erred in quashing the FIR.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR based on a compromise between the complainant and the accused, especially when the allegations involve defrauding the State.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any cases, books, or legal provisions. However, the court’s reasoning is based on the principle that offenses against the State cannot be compromised by private parties.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that offenses against the State cannot be compromised by private parties. The Court emphasized that when an FIR is registered for offenses involving fraud against the State, the State becomes the victim, not just the complainant. The Court also noted that the High Court did not consider the State’s objection to quashing the FIR. The fact that the matter was still under investigation was also a significant factor in the Court’s decision to set aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR based solely on the compromise between the complainant and the accused.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Haryana and set aside the order passed by the High Court. The Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR based solely on the compromise between the complainant and the accused. The Court emphasized that the allegations in the FIR were related to defrauding the State, and such matters cannot be settled on the basis of a private compromise. The Court clarified that the respondent no.1 could raise all defenses available to her during the trial but the FIR could not be quashed at the stage of the investigation. The Court stated:

“In the facts of the present case after setting the criminal machinery into motion , which had relevance with the fraud allegedly committed by the respondent no.1 with her employer, the complainant did not have any locus to compromise the matter with the accused when the FIR had been registered.”

The Court further added:

“The allegations against the accused are of defrauding the State. How can such a matter be settled on the basis of a “compromise” between two private individuals? The simple answer is that it cannot be done.”

The Court also noted:

“The argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that in the departmental proceedings initiated on the same ground, she has already been exonerated is merely to be noticed as this may be a defence of the accused , which was not at all the ground on the basis of which the FIR in -question was quashed , at the stage of investigation.”

Key Takeaways

• Compromises between private parties cannot be the sole basis for quashing an FIR when the allegations involve offenses against the State.
• The State is considered the victim in cases of fraud against the government, and private compromises do not negate the State’s interest in pursuing justice.
• High Courts should not quash FIRs in such cases without considering the State’s objections and the seriousness of the allegations.
• The accused can still raise all available defenses during the trial, but the FIR cannot be quashed at the investigation stage based on a private compromise.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and dismissed the petition filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking quashing of the FIR. The Court clarified that this decision would not prejudice the case of Respondent No. 1 for taking any defense in the proceedings against her at any appropriate stage.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a First Information Report (FIR) registered for offenses involving fraud against the State cannot be quashed based solely on a compromise between the complainant and the accused. This judgment clarifies that in such cases, the State is the primary victim, and the interest of the State in pursuing justice cannot be overridden by a private compromise. This reinforces the principle that offenses against the State are not merely private matters and require proper investigation and prosecution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Haryana vs. Dr. Ritu Singh and Another clarifies that offenses against the State cannot be compromised by private parties. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing that an FIR involving allegations of fraud against the State cannot be quashed solely based on a compromise between the complainant and the accused. This ruling underscores the importance of the State’s role in prosecuting such offenses and ensures that the criminal justice system is not undermined by private settlements in matters of public interest.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• First Information Report (FIR)
• Quashing of FIR
• Fraud
• Offenses Against the State
• Compromise
• Criminal Procedure Code

Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Child Categories:

• Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

FAQ

Q: Can an FIR be quashed if the complainant and accused reach a compromise?

A: It depends on the nature of the offense. In cases involving offenses against the State, a compromise between private parties cannot be the sole basis for quashing an FIR.

Q: What happens if the allegations in the FIR involve defrauding the State?

A: In such cases, the State is considered the victim, and private compromises do not negate the State’s interest in pursuing justice. The FIR cannot be quashed solely based on a compromise.

Q: What should a High Court consider before quashing an FIR based on a compromise?

A: High Courts should consider the nature of the offense, the State’s objections, and the seriousness of the allegations. If the offense is against the State, the FIR should not be quashed solely based on a private compromise.

Q: Can the accused raise defenses even if the FIR is not quashed?

A: Yes, the accused can raise all available defenses during the trial, but the FIR cannot be quashed at the investigation stage based on a private compromise.

Q: What is the significance of this Supreme Court judgment?

A: This judgment reinforces the principle that offenses against the State are not merely private matters and require proper investigation and prosecution. It clarifies that private compromises cannot override the State’s interest in pursuing justice.