Authors – Ujjwal Tripathi & Mrigank Kumar SIngh, Students from Christ (Deemed to be University), Delhi NCR

Introduction

The role of a criminal justice system in any society is to give justice to the victims and punish the offenders of the law and to ensure this, we have several laws. The object of these laws is to protect the suppressed people. Yet it can be witnessed that often people use and exploit these laws to their own benefits. They blackmail innocent people and lodge FIRs against them by making false claims.

To prevent the abuse of law. The lawmakers have provided certain rights to the accused person. One such right is called quashing of FIR. It means that a petition to quash can be filed in the High Court and if satisfied that accused is wrongfully accused, it can dismiss a FIR.

Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

As per section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court has the authority to quash a FIR if it finds it was filed with the malicious intent of inconveniencing the injured party. It safeguards the High Court’s inherent powers to halt misuse of any court’s procedure and to achieve justice, so as a response, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the crimes. However, the burden of proof in proving that the FIR was filed solely for the purpose of harassing the petitioner is to be proved by the petitioner only.

Grounds for quashing of FIR

The hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sundar Babu & Ors vs. State of Tamil Nadu[i] and Bhajan Lal[ii] case specified few grounds on which a FIR or a criminal proceeding can be quashed.

1. Information that is lodged in FIR does not prima facie amount to any offence against the accused.
2. No sufficient ground to proceed with the criminal proceedings.
3. When a FIR is filed for a non-cognizable offence, the inquiry can only begin after the magistrate has issued an order.
4. When the intention behind lodging the FIR was to take personal revenge against an innocent person.
5. When the investigation done by officials after recording FIR can not prove the guilt of the accused.

Quashing of FIR if parties enter into a compromise

The High Court has inherent power under s.482 of CrPC to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings if the case is amicably compromised by both the parties to the dispute. The High Court can quash such case at any stage of the proceedings. One important condition is that, both the complainant and the accused have to voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence settle the dispute peacefully. When a settlement is made between the parties then a petition can be filed by both the parties in the High Court under this section to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings pending. The court, when satisfied that the settlement is voluntary and the offence of the case do not amount to grave nature or harm public can quash the FIR against the accused.

Amicable settlement in compoundable and non-compoundable offences

The Indian judiciary from time to time came over this question that in which cases quashing of FIR if, parties have amicably compromised the dispute can be allowed. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[iii], at para 61 of the judgment held that “Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.” Further, it depends on the facts of different case, therefore, no particular category can be prescribed. Before exercising the powers under s.482 of CrPC the High Court must look at the nature of the offence committed. For instance, grave and heinous crimes such as murder, rape, and dacoity cannot be allowed to quashed even if the victim or victim’s family and the offender have compromised the matter amicably. Such offences are not private in character and have a significant social effect.

Later, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[iv]case, the Supreme Court considered the Gian Singh case and held that, even in cases of non-compoundable offences the high court can terminate criminal proceedings when the parties have reached a compromise. This power, however, should be utilised carefully and with caution.

Offence committed against public servants

The offences committed against public servants are not against any individual but instead the general public is the aggrieve party in these offences. Therefore, such offences are of serious nature Though, these offences are non-compoundable in nature yet quashing of fir in these cases depend on the facts of different case. The Punjab and Haryana high court in the case of Sukhmander Singh v. State of Punjab[v], held that section 482 gives broad inherent powers to the High courts that are to be exercised sparingly and the court can quash FIR in cases where offence is committed against the public servant if, both the parties have amicably compromised the dispute.

However, in the case of Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab[vi] the court held that “..after public servant lodges an FIR regarding the assault raised upon him while he was performing his official duty, he loses the locus standi to enter into compromise with the accused.” Further, in Harnek Singh judgment[vii] where the complainant, a head constable was attacked by the accused and therefore, couldn’t discharge his duty. Later, both the parties settled the dispute by a compromise. The hon’ble high court held that such crimes of grave nature cannot be quashed merely if the parties have settle the dispute. If such compromise is allowed then it would lead to encouragement of such offences. Such offences must be prosecuted by the state, not by the claimant. In Satnam case[viii] as well, the court held that offences against public servants are not of private nature that can be quashed by a mere settlement. Once, the claimant lodges the FIR he loses the right to amicably settle the dispute with the accused.

Conclusion

Quashing of FIR is a vital legal tool to protect the innocent people who are wrongfully accused of offences by the complainants. This legal tool works as a sword to provide justice to such people. The inherent powers of the High Courts to quash the FIR u/s.482 of CrPC gives authority to the courts if the court finds that such FIR was filed with the malicious intent of inconveniencing the injured party. Various grounds have been specified by the Indian judiciary when a FIR can be quashed.

One way to quash the FIR is by amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. The court, under s. 482 of CrPC when satisfied that the settlement is voluntary and the offence of the case do not amount to grave nature or harm public can quash the FIR against the accused. However, the offences of grave nature that affect the public cannot be quashed by a mere compromise between the parties. The offences committed against public servants are of serious nature. Once, the FIR is registered on a statement of the complainant then that complainant (public servant) loses the right to settle the dispute with the accused. The court through various judgments have highlighted this rule. A crime committed against a public servant is not against an individual but it is the public who is aggrieved and if such compromise is allowed then it would lead to encouragement of such offences. Such offences must be prosecuted by the state, not by the claimant. Hence, the offences committed against the public servants which prevents them from discharging their duty are of serious nature and are non-compromised.

---

[i] Sundar Babu & Ors vs. State of Tamil Nadu JT 2009 (13) SC 666

[ii] State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]

[iii] Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303

[iv] Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

[v] Sukhmander Singh v. State of Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3055

[vi] Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 19914

[vii] Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 4923 : (2016) 163 AIC 806

[viii] Satnam Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 16356