Can't quash heinous offence FIR even if parties agree: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, April 1

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the heinous offence of attempt to murder could not be compounded in the absence of companionship, proximity of relations, well-built bonds or “being in relations” by merely stating that the parties wanted to live in peace. The explanation was worthless for allowing the compounding of the heinous offence.

Sans background, explanation is void

Without the background of friendship, the closeness of family, strong bonds, this explanation is meaningless to permit compounding of a heinous offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Justice Anoop Chitkara

“A perusal of the contents of the compromise and victims’ statements about compromise state that they entered into a compromise to live in brotherhood, peace and harmony. However, without the background of friendship, the closeness of family, strong bonds or being in relations, this explanation is meaningless to permit compounding of a heinous offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, where the sentence can run to imprisonment for life,” Justice Anoop Chitkara of the High Court asserted.

The case has its genesis in an FIR registered for attempt to murder and other offences in November 2019 at Civil Lines police station in Kaithal district under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 324 and 341 of the IPC and the provisions of the Arms Act.

The matter was brought to the High Court’s notice after the accused filed a petition for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victim. The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the victim and the complainant had appeared in the Kaithal Special Judge’s court before stating that they did not want to pursue the FIR against the accused. The Judge, in his report, stated that the parties had consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

The state counsel, on the other hand, “severely” opposed this compromise before seeking the dismissal of the petition on the ground of the offence being of heinous nature. After hearing the rival contentions and going though the documents, Justice Chitkara asserted it would be appropriate to refer to the compromise deed. The reason stated in it was that the parties would live peacefully. Referring to a plethora of judgments on the issue, Justice Chitkara added: “The contents of compromise deed and its objectives point towards its rejection, in the light of the judicial precedents”.