Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeal allowed

State of Haryana v. Dr. Ritu Singh and Another

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2024
Neutral Citation:[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1004

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Sudhanshu Dhulia
  • Rajesh Bindal
Judgment Date
2024-03-22
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. The impugned High Court order quashing the FIR on the basis of the compromise is set aside; the petition seeking quashing is dismissed. However, nothing said herein will prejudice the respondent’s right to defend themselves at any appropriate stage.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • State of Haryana

Respondents

  • Dr. Ritu Singh and Another

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Deepak Thukral
  • • Gautam Sharma
  • • Dr. Monika Gusain

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Aayush Agarwala
  • • Nitin Saluja
  • • Ms. Pranya Madan
  • • Nischal Tripathi

Case Synopsis & Summary

State of Haryana v. Dr. Ritu Singh and Another concerns an FIR registered against a veterinary officer for alleged defrauding the State by unauthorized foreign trips and salary withdrawals supported by false medical certificates. The complainant, a private individual, sought action and the FIR was later quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the basis of an amicable settlement between the complainant and the accused. The Supreme Court examined whether a compromise between private individuals can extinguish a criminal proceeding arising from offences against the State. It held that the allegations are against the State and relate to fraud against public revenue; thus the matter cannot be settled by private compromise. After registration and during investigation, the criminal machinery is set in motion; the complainant is not the sole victim, and therefore lacks locus to compromise when the FIR is active. The State's reply to the quashing petition, though on record, was not adequately considered. The High Court’s order failed to reflect the public interest and the nature of the offences. The Court concluded that allowing quashment on mere compromise undermines the authority of the criminal justice system and public interest. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, the appeal is allowed, and the FIR will proceed in accordance with law. The Court also indicated that nothing said will prejudice the respondent’s right to defend themselves at an appropriate stage.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482Right to Information Act, 2015

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that s. 482 of the CrPC empowers the High Court to quash only in exceptional cases where the FIR is illegal or without jurisdiction; a private compromise cannot extinguish a cognizable offence involving defrauding the State. Once an FIR is registered and investigation begins, the complainant is not the sole victim; the State and public interest are involved. The respondent's claim of compromise between private individuals cannot be the basis for quashing when the matter is still under investigation. The State's reply before the High Court, though submitted, was not properly considered; the High Court's conclusion relied solely on the settlement and overlooked the ongoing investigation and the public interest. The department's earlier exoneration in departmental proceedings cannot defeat the need to probe criminal transactions that allegedly defraud the State. The present appeal seeks to restore the proper exercise of jurisdiction under s. 482 and to ensure the State's action remains to be determined by the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court's decisive view is that compromise between private parties cannot quash a lawful FIR for a state offence.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the complainant had no locus to prosecute or compromise; the FIR was filed by a private complainant not to pursue private vengeance; the matter is alleged to harm the State; the High Court's quashing on the basis of an amicable settlement would relieve the accused without a full investigation; private reconciliation would impede the state's interest; the complainant's authority to compromise is limited and the State's interest remains; continuing the proceedings would serve the public interest; the State should be the victim in the entire matter and the High Court erred; departmental exoneration does not preclude criminal action; the factual and legal dimensions require the FIR to proceed to uphold public interest and ensure due process.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against State of Haryana v. Dr. Ritu Singh and Another and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[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 order[1] passed by the High Court[2] whereby the petition[3] 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 FIR[4] 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 [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1006 ## **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 complainantrespondent no.2 had compromised the matter with the accusedrespondent 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 certificates[5] . When the FIR in-question was quashed the matter was still being 5 The victim was not the complainant but the State. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1008 ## **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.