STATE OF HARYANA versus DR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER

STATE OF HARYANA versus DR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER

The High Court erred in quashing the FIR on the basis of a compromise between the complainant and the accused because the allegations involved defrauding the State (the employer); once criminal proceedings were set in motion and investigation was pending, the private complainant lacked locus to compromise the matter and the FIR could not be quashed on that basis.

Parties
Appellant: State of Haryana; Respondent No.1 (accused): Dr. Ritu Singh; Respondent No.2 (complainant): Satish Saroha
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Quashing FIR Under Section 482 Cr PC
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order quashing FIR set aside; petition for quashing dismissed
Legal Topics
Quashing of FIR, Compromise Between Private Parties, Fraud Against State, Section 482 Cr PC
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Quashing of FIR Compromise Between Private Parties Fraud Against State Section 482 Cr PC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Haryana

Appellant

Dr. Ritu Singh

Respondent No.1 (accused)

Satish Saroha

Respondent No.2 (complainant)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Quashing FIR Under Section 482 Cr PC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an FIR alleging defrauding the State can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the complainant and the accused
  2. 2 Whether a private complainant has locus to compromise a matter which alleges an offence against the State once FIR is registered and investigation is pending
  3. 3 Whether departmental exoneration of an accused is a ground for quashing an FIR at the stage of investigation

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in quashing the FIR on the basis of a compromise between the complainant and the accused because the allegations involved defrauding the State (the employer); once criminal proceedings were set in motion and investigation was pending, the private complainant lacked locus to compromise the matter and the FIR could not be quashed on that basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order quashing FIR set aside; petition for quashing dismissed

Orders

  • Impugned order dated 27.02.2019 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh set aside
  • Petition filed by respondent no.1 seeking quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise dismissed