FIR Quashed on Voluntary Settlement Where Conviction Was Remote and Continuation Served No Useful Purpose

The FIR alleged that respondent no. 2, Rohit Kumar, was sent to Ethiopia for employment after the complainant paid ₹5,65,000 in advance, and was subsequently wrongfully confined or kidnapped there.

The FIR named the petitioner among others and was registered under Sections 115(2), 127, 137(2), 140(4), 316(2), 318(4), 47 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 10, 16 and 24(G) of the Immigration Act.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, contending that no specific role was attributed to him and that the money had been returned.

The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 filed a joint compromise application; the latter confirmed that they had received the money and did not wish to pursue the proceedings.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings could be quashed in light of the parties’ voluntary settlement and repayment of the alleged amount.

2. Whether continuing the criminal proceedings, in the circumstances of the case, would serve any useful purpose or amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and its principles concerning the quashing of criminal proceedings following settlement.

The Court considered whether, given the nature and circumstances of the dispute and the settlement, the likelihood of conviction was remote and whether continuation of the proceedings would serve the ends of justice or instead amount to an abuse of process.

The Court verified that respondents 2 and 3 appeared before it, had entered the compromise voluntarily and without coercion or undue influence, had received the alleged amount, and did not wish to pursue the criminal case.

Having regard to the settlement and the particular circumstances, the Court considered the possibility of conviction remote and found that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of process.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh, it concluded that quashing would serve the ends of justice.

The compromise application and any pending applications were also disposed of.