Can Partial Compromise Be Ground For Quashing FIR? Punjab & Haryana High Court Refers Matter To Larger Bench

Observing that "there is no explicit guidelines governing the issue", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has referred the matter of quashing of FIR on the basis of "partial compromise" to the larger bench.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari framed the following issues for adjudication to a Larger Bench of the High Court:-

“(i) Whether, bearing in mind the repercussions attached to partial quashing of FIR, on the trial of other co-accused, can a partial compromise yet ably constitute the ground for quashing of FIR, only qua some of the accused ?

(ii) Would partial quashing of criminal proceedings, on the strength of partial compromise, elevate the status of victim from that of a stakeholder to that of a driver of the criminal justice system?”

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions based on common question of law, seeking "partial quashing of FIRs, on the bedrock of partial compromises."

It was argued by the senior counsel in one of the cases that once the complainant concerned has entered into a compromise with the petitioner, therefore, there is no occasion for him/her to support the case of prosecution against the petitioner, rather it would be wastage of the precious time of Court to proceed further against the petitioner, as in such circumstances, there would only be a bleak chance of petitioner's conviction.

The Amicus Curiae, P.S. Ahluwalia in the matter submitted that "in the entire framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e. right from the stage of taking cognizance of offence under Section 190, upto the stage of compounding of offence under Section 320, the entire emphasis has been supplied on the “offence” and not the “offender”."

Since the Indian Penal Code envisages myriad offences and their punishments, therefore, quashing of criminal proceedings only qua some of the accused, on the strength of partial compromise, shall have multiple ramifications on the remaining accused, he added.

The Amicus Curiae further illustrated that in a situation where a compromise takes place between a main accused, who has been accused of committing an offense under S.326 IPC, and the  co-accused has been made an accused person on the strength of S.34 IPC, if the principal accused is exonerated on the strength of the partial compromise only with regard to him, it shall render it impossible for the trial to be conducted against the remaining accused person.

It was also submitted that the law recognizes the participation of victim only as a stakeholder, however, permitting partial quashing of criminal proceedings, at the whims of victim/complainant, would elevate his/her status to that of a driver of the criminal justice system, which in fact cannot be construed to be the underlying object of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

After hearing the submissions, the Court examined the cases wherein the co-ordinate bench of the High Court  has allowed partial quashing of FIR, on the basis of partial compromise.

Adding that "there are no explicit guidelines/“ratio decidendi”/“legal precedent” governing the issue of partial quashing of criminal proceedings, on the basis of partial compromise, coupled with the fact that conflicting views are adopted by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court," the bench said it is fit case to refer it to the larger bench. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 125

Title: RAKESH DAS V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Click here to read/download the order