STATE OF HARYANAversusDR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER

                 [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1004 : 2024 INSC 263

                            State of Haryana
                                    v.
                       Dr. Ritu Singh and Another
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2024)
                                 22 March 2024
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       FIR against the accused-employee by the complainant, for
       defrauding the State-employer, if can be quashed on basis of a
       “compromise” between the complainant and the accused.

                                   Headnotes
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR
       – FIR against the accused-employee by the complainant for
       defrauding the State-employer – Allegations with reference
       to withdrawal of salary for the period the accused-employee
       was on unauthorized foreign trips and also withdrawal of
       salary by producing false medical certificates – FIR quashed
       by the High Court on basis of a “compromise” between the
       complainant and the accused – Sustainability:
       Held: Order not legally sustainable – Allegations against the
       accused are of defrauding the State – Such a matter cannot
       be settled on the basis of a “compromise” between two private
       individuals – Perusal of the contents of the FIR would show that
       it was not the complainant who was the victim with reference to
       the allegations made in the complaint to the police, to enable the
       High Court to exercise the power to quash the FIR on the basis of
       compromise – When the FIR was quashed the matter was still being
       investigated by the police – After setting the criminal machinery into
       motion, which had relevance with the fraud allegedly committed
       by the employee with her employer, the complainant did not have
       any locus to compromise the matter with the accused when the
       FIR had been registered – Even the High Court failed to consider
       that aspect of the matter – Also the reply filed by the State to the
       quashing petition was not referred to – Submission that in the
       departmental proceedings initiated on the same ground, employee
       has already been exonerated is merely to be noticed – Thus,
       impugned order passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 7-9]
* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                                    1005

                 State of Haryana v. Dr. Ritu Singh and Another


                                           List of Acts
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                                       List of Keywords
      FIR; Quashing of FIR; Compromise between two private individuals;
      Defrauding the State.

                                     Case Arising From
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1791
      of 2024
      From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2019 of the High Court
      of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 51493 of 2018
                                 Appearances for Parties
      Deepak Thukral, A.A.G., Gautam Sharma, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs.
      for the Appellant.
      Aayush Agarwala, M/S. PBA Legal, Nitin Saluja, Ms. Pranya Madan,
      Nischal Tripathi, Advs. for the Respondents.
                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                            Judgment
      Rajesh Bindal, J.
1.    The State has filed the present appeal impugning the order1 passed
      by the High Court2 whereby the petition3 filed by the respondent
      no.1 seeking quashing of the FIR was allowed and the same was
      quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the
      complainant-respondent no.2 and the accused-respondent no.1.
2.    Briefly stated, the facts available on record are that a complaint
      was filed by the respondent no.2 with the police alleging certain
      offences committed by the respondent no.1, on the basis of which
      FIR4 in question was registered. Respondent no.1 at the relevant
      point of time was working as veterinary doctor in Policlinic, Sonipat


1    Dated 27.02.2019
2    High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
3    CRM-M-51493 of 2018
4    FIR No.0116 dated 12.05.2018, Police Station Barauda, Dist. Sonipat, Haryana
1006                                                      [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Animal Husbandry Department. Immediately, after registration of the
     FIR while the matter was still under investigation, the respondent
     no.1 filed a petition in the High Court seeking quashing thereof. A
     perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court shows that
     respondent no.1-accused as well as respondent no.2-complainant
     submitted before the High Court that the matter in dispute has been
     amicably settled between the parties, hence, the FIR may be quashed
     on the basis of the compromise. Even though in the reply filed by
     the State to the quashing petition, the stand taken was that the
     FIR does not deserve be quashed as there are serious allegations
     against the respondent no.1-accused. However, still the High Court
     merely because the complainant had compromised the matter with
     the respondent no.1-accused, quashed the FIR. The aforesaid order
     is impugned by the State before this Court.
3.   Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that once on the
     basis of a complainant, submitted to the Police, an FIR had been
     registered with the allegations that the respondent no.1 was involved
     in commission of serious offences during her service career and
     the matter was still under investigation, the High Court exceeded its
     jurisdiction in quashing the FIR, merely because the complainant-
     respondent no.2 had compromised the matter with the accused-
     respondent no.1. After the FIR was registered or even before that,
     it was not the complainant only who was the sufferer, rather it was
     an offence against the State. Allegation against the respondent no.1
     was of defrauding the State, her employer. The FIR was registered
     as cognizable offence was found to have been committed by the
     respondent no.1. The stand taken by the State before the High
     Court was not even considered.
4.   On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted
     that the respondent no.2-complainant had no locus to involve in the
     issue. He had filed a complaint to the police with certain allegations
     with regard to her service career referring to certain documents,
     which were not privy to him. Registration of FIR against respondent
     no.1 was merely to harass her, who had otherwise exposed various
     irregularities in the Animal Husbandry Department. Even in the
     departmental proceedings, the respondent no.1 has been exonerated
     after due enquiry. If FIR is allowed to be proceeded with, it will be
     nothing else but an abuse of process of law. The High Court has not
     committed any error in the exercise of jurisdiction to quash the FIR.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                            1007

                  State of Haryana v. Dr. Ritu Singh and Another


5.    We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
      paper book.
6.    In the case in hand, on the basis of information received under the
      Right to Information Act, 2015 the respondent no.2 filed complaint
      to the police, on the basis of which FIR in-question was registered.
      The contents of the same are extracted below:
              “Sir, in concern to abovementioned subject, I draw your
              attention that Dr. Ritu Singh Veterinary Doctor Policlinic
              Sonipat Animal Husbandry Department was appointed
              in year 2013-2014 at Nizampur Gohana. Thereafter, Dr.
              Ritu Singh visited foreign countries 6-7 times without
              the permission of department. During these visits, she
              had shown her presence at State Veterinary Hospital
              Nizampur. During this period (Foreign Trips), showing false
              presence, self verified and withdraw the salary from Govt.
              Treasury. During this period, she also presented false
              medical certificates and intentionally, under a scheme, she
              withdrew the salary from Govt. Treasury and committed
              loss to Govt. Treasury. It is requested to you that this
              complaint be fairly investigated and legal action be taken
              against her. Enclosed: Information received under RTI.
              26 Applicant: Satish Saroha S/o Sh. Lekhi Ram Village
              Veyapur, Sonipat.”
      6.1 Immediately after registration of FIR, respondent no.1 filed a
          petition before the High Court seeking quashing thereof, on
          the basis of the compromise with the complainant, which was
          allowed by the High Court.
7.    A perusal of the contents of the FIR would show that it was not the
      complainant who was the victim with reference to the allegations
      made in the complaint to the police, to enable the High Court to
      exercise the power to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise.
      The allegations are with reference to withdrawal of salary for the
      period the respondent no.1 was on unauthorized foreign trips and
      also withdrawal of salary by producing false medical certificates5.
      When the FIR in-question was quashed the matter was still being


5    The victim was not the complainant but the State.
1008                                                     [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     investigated by the police. It was even so submitted by the State in
     its reply to the quashing petition in the High Court.
8.   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. Even the High Court had failed to
     consider that aspect of the matter. Even though the reply filed by
     the State to the quashing petition was taken on record but without
     even referring to the stand taken therein, merely on the basis of
     compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused,
     the FIR was quashed. The order cannot be legally sustained. 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.
     8.1 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.
9.   For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is allowed.
     The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The
     petition filed by the respondent no.1 seeking quashing of the FIR
     in-question on the basis of compromise is dismissed. However, we
     make it clear that nothing said above will prejudice the case of the
     respondent no.1 for taking any defence in the proceedings against
     her at any appropriate stage. The limited issue considered by this
     Court was with reference to quashing of the FIR in-question on the
     basis of the compromise.

     Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain                  Result of the case:
                                                          Appeal allowed.