Compromise Quashing of FIR.Partial Quashing of FIR Public Servant FIR Quashing.कोम्प्रोमाईज़ क्वॉशिंग

Compromise Quashing of FIR and process. Partial Quashing of FIR. Public Servant FIR Quashing. कोम्प्रोमाईज़ क्वॉशिंग

#Compromise_Quashing_FIR
#Partial_Quashing_FIR
#Amit_Puri_Advocate
#Public_Servant_FIR_Quashing
#CrPc_Section_482
#Inherent_Powers_of_High_Court
#Fake_FIR_Compromise
#False_case_quashing
#Aapsi_samjhota_FIR_radd
#Raajiname_se_FIR_kese_khatam_karen
#FIR_radd_kese_karwayen
#FIR_Cancel
#High_Court_Quashing
#FIR_khatam_karne_ka_tarika




AMIT PURI Advocate
Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHANDIGARH.
M.No. 88475-30148, 99883-10600




Compromise Quashing

The parties to a dispute who have reached an agreement can petition the High Court for the quashing of criminal proceedings, FIRs, or complaints based on the compromise. The High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to issue necessary orders to prevent abuse of the judicial process or to secure the goals of justice.

When might a court quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise?
The Supreme Court has outlined and defined numerous scenarios and parameters for quashing an FIR based on a compromise. In Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the court considered when to exercise such power and when not to.

The power to quash non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be used in the following situations:
cases with an overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character;
cases arising from commercial transactions;
disputes arising out of matrimonial relationships;
family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute among themselves.

When courts cannot dismiss criminal proceedings based on a compromise?
In the following situations, such power cannot be used:
Prosecutions involving heinous and serious mental depravity offences, such as murder, rape, and dacoity, as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
Offences under special statutes, such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, or offences committed by public servants while serving in that capacity, are not to be quashed merely because the victim and the offender reached an agreement;

Is it possible to have an offence under section 307 IPC quashed because of a compromise?
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Naryan and others, Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019, that criminal proceedings for offences under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. that have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed in the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that the parties have resolved.

Conclusion:
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a criminal trial, FIR, or complaint is distinct from the power conferred to a criminal court under Section 320 of the Code to compound offences. While inherent power has no statutory boundaries, it must be used in conformity with the rules enshrined in it, namely to achieve the goals of justice or to prevent misuse of any court's procedure. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, the ability to quash the criminal process, complaint, or FIR may be exercised if the accused and the victim have resolved their dispute.

Partial Quashing Of FIR Only Qua Accused With Whom Complainant Has Settled Matter Permissible: Delhi High Court