22 March 2024 FIR >> Criminal Law   |   RTI – Right to Information >> Miscellaneous  

In a recent case, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a High Court order quashing a First Information Report (FIR) based solely on a compromise between the complainant and the accused. The FIR alleged fraud against the State, highlighting the inability of private parties to settle such cases.

The Case:

The case involved a veterinarian, Respondent No. 1, accused of defrauding their employer, the State. Respondent No. 2, who filed the complaint, alleged the veterinarian collected salary while on unauthorized foreign trips and used fake medical certificates. An FIR was registered based on the complaint. However, Respondent No. 1 then petitioned the High Court to quash the FIR, claiming they had settled the matter with the complainant. The High Court approved the compromise and quashed the FIR.

The Appeal:

The State challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the FIR alleged a crime against the government, not a private individual. The State emphasized that such cases cannot be settled by a compromise between the involved parties.

The Supreme Court's Decision:

The Supreme Court agreed with the State's arguments. The Court's judgement highlighted that the FIR alleged fraud against the State, not a personal grievance. The Court emphasized that the complainant lacked the authority to compromise a case involving the State.

Key Takeaways:

This case clarifies that FIRs alleging crimes against the State cannot be quashed based solely on a compromise between the complainant and the accused. The Court's decision reinforces the principle that such cases require proper investigation and due process.

While the veterinarian argued they were exonerated in separate departmental proceedings, the Court indicated this wouldn't affect the criminal investigation based on the FIR. The Court's judgement offers important insights for legal proceedings involving allegations of fraud against the State.

Right to Information Act, 2005