The State Of Haryana vs Ritu Singh

2024 INSC 263 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1791 OF 2024

STATE OF HARYANA … Appellant (s)

VERSUS

DR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER … Respondent(s)

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Ashwani Kumar Date: 2024.04.03 17:41:39 IST Reason: 1 Dated 27.02.2019 2 High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-51493 of 2018

Page 1 of 7 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 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

4 FIR No.0116 dated 12.05.2018, Police Station Barauda, Dist. Sonipat, Haryana

Page 2 of 7 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

Page 3 of 7 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.

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

Page 4 of 7 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 investigated by the police. It was even

5 The victim was not the complainant but the State.

Page 5 of 7

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

Page 6 of 7 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.

……………….……………..J. (SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

……………….……………..J. (RAJESH BINDAL) New Delhi March 22, 2024.

Page 7 of 7