IMPORTANT POINT
Offence of defrauding State cannot be settled on the basis of compromise between two private individuals.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The State has filed the present appeal impugning the order,¹[Dated 27.02.2019] passed by the High Court,²[High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh] whereby the petition,³[CRM-M-51493 of 2018] 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[FIR No.0116 dated 12.05.2018, Police Station Barauda, Dist. Sonipat, Haryana] 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 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.

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 permissio