Can FIR Be Quashed Partially Based On Compromise With Some Accused? Supreme Court Appoints Amicus To Consider

The Supreme Court recently appointed Senior Advocate K Parameshwar as an Amicus Curiae to deliberate on the issue of whether a criminal case can be quashed as against one of the many accused under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a compromise arrived at by the parties. A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh passed the order in a case where the informant and the accused had arrived at a compromise and sought partial quashing of the first information report as against him.The FIR is lodged under Sections 120B, 380(theft in dwelling house), 411(receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had first approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.During the course of the hearing before the Single Judge of the High Court, a report of the jurisdictional Magistrate was called. The report submitted confirmed that the parties had entered into the compromise of their own volition. But considering the lack of guidelines/precedent in this regard, the Single Judge referred the matter to a division bench.On November 12, 2024, the division bench answered the reference that partial quashing of an FIR is not permissible. During the hearing, Advocate Pranjal Kishore(for the petitioner accused) pointed out that the High Court's judgment is contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat (2012) and Lovely Salhotra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018). As per the petitioner, in Jayrajsinh, the Supreme Court partially quashed a non-compoundable offence on the basis of a compromise. Whereas, in Lovely Salhotra, the case was quashed as the Court found that there was no offence made out against some of the accused. It said that partially quashing is permissible.He also submitted that the petitioner was initially not named in the FIR, but he was added as an accused on the basis of statement of co-accused.While issuing notice, the Court had stayed the trial only qua the petitioner. Case Details: PUNEET KUMAR @ PUNIT KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR| Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 17731/2024Click Here To Read OrderAppearances: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pranjal Kishore, AOR Mr. Aman Bansal, Adv. Mr. Nagarjun Sahu, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Saksham Ojha, Adv. Ms. Geetashi Chandna, Adv. Mr. Abhay Nair, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv. Mr. Kumar Prashant, AOR Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mansi Joshi, Adv.

Can FIR Be Quashed Partially Based On Compromise With Some Accused? Supreme Court Appoints Amicus To Consider

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags