The Punjab and Haryana high court has refused to quash a criminal case against three persons even as the cabbie who was allegedly robbed off his car had compromised with the three accused.
“Having regard to the nature of crime allegedly committed in this case, which is a crime not against individual person, rather against society at large, having impact on society, this court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case where FIR in question and subsequent proceedings should be quashed on the basis of a compromise,” the bench of justice Deepak Gupta observed dismissing the plea.
The three accused had filed a plea in the high court claiming that they had compromised the matter with the complainant, an Uber driver, from whom they had allegedly robbed the car along with his valuables.
The plea was filed on May 2, 2022, upon which the high court had asked them to appear before the judicial magistrate concerned along with the complainant and record their statements. The report from the magistrate said that they had compromised the matter. However, the state government had opposed quashing of the FIR in January 2023 pointing out the heinous nature of the crime.
As per the proceedings, the cabbie associated with Uber got a message from the company regarding a booking from the Gurugram bus stand on August 29, 2021. Three people boarded the cab for Jaipur but on the way, they stopped the vehicle on some pretext and assaulted him and robbed him of his vehicle and valuables. The FIR was registered the next day.
{{/usCountry}}As per the proceedings, the cabbie associated with Uber got a message from the company regarding a booking from the Gurugram bus stand on August 29, 2021. Three people boarded the cab for Jaipur but on the way, they stopped the vehicle on some pretext and assaulted him and robbed him of his vehicle and valuables. The FIR was registered the next day.
{{/usCountry}}Subsequently, three alleged accused were arrested, and recoveries as claimed by the complainant were made along with a country made pistol used to assault him. Challan was also presented against the three, but they somehow convinced the complainant for a compromise.
The bench recorded that the high court has powers to quash FIRs, but the present case does not fall in any of the categories in which the cancellation of FIR can be ordered as it was a case of “heinous crime”.