Introduction

FIR quashing is a significant legal remedy in the Indian judicial system, allowing the High Court to dismiss an FIR under specific circumstances. The Supreme Court of India is set to examine a crucial legal question—whether an FIR can be partially quashed when a compromise is reached between the victims and only some of the accused. This issue, which has led to conflicting judgments across various High Courts, has now been taken up for scrutiny in the case of Puneet Kumar @ Punit Kumar vs State of Haryana and Others. The verdict could significantly impact criminal justice procedures and the backlog of pending cases.

Legal Background

Under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court has the inherent power for FIR quashing against an accused person. This power is typically exercised in cases where continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the judicial process or where it serves the interest of justice.

What is Section 528 BNSS?

Section 528 of BNSS grants High Courts the authority to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings if they believe that the case does not merit further legal action. The court exercises this power primarily to prevent misuse of legal processes, harassment of individuals, or unnecessary prolongation of litigation. This section ensures that judicial discretion is applied in a way that serves the ends of justice while also maintaining balance in the criminal justice system.

Courts have often quashed FIRs when the complainant and the accused have reached a compromise in cases involving personal disputes, particularly in non-serious criminal offenses. However, whether such FIR quashing can be partial, applying only to some of the accused while the case continues against others, is an issue that remains unresolved.

Supreme Court’s Consideration

Recognizing the conflicting judgments across various High Courts, the Supreme Court has agreed to examine the legality of FIR quashing based on partial settlements. The case involves the accused, Puneet Kumar @ Punit Kumar, who sought relief on the grounds of a compromise with the complainant while the case continued against the remaining accused.

Punit Kumar @Punit Kumar vs State of Haryana and Others

In this case, Puneet Kumar, one of the accused, filed a petition seeking FIR quashing against him on the basis of a compromise reached with the complainant. However, other accused individuals in the case had not entered into a similar compromise. The petitioner argued that since the dispute had been settled as far as he was concerned, the FIR against him should be quashed, even if proceedings continued against the others.

The Supreme Court, acknowledging the conflicting precedents on this issue, issued a notice and kept the proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance while allowing the trial to proceed against the remaining accused. The final ruling in this case will determine whether FIR quashing can be selectively applied for certain individuals while remaining in effect for others.

Conflicting High Court Judgments

Several High Courts have taken divergent views on this issue:

1. Some High Courts have held that FIRs can only be quashed in their entirety—once registered, an FIR cannot be selectively annulled for certain individuals unless the case as a whole is compromised.
2. Other High Courts have allowed partial FIR quashing—especially when the settlement involves personal disputes, minor offenses, or when the accused seeking relief played a minimal role in the alleged crime.

This legal uncertainty has led to inconsistent rulings across different jurisdictions, making the Supreme Court’s judgment on this matter highly anticipated.

Impact on the Legal System

If the Supreme Court allows partial FIR quashing, it could:

• Reduce the burden on courts by allowing settlements for some accused, expediting the resolution process.
• Ensure fairness by differentiating between degrees of involvement among accused persons in a crime.
• Set a precedent for handling similar cases in the future, bringing uniformity to judicial decisions.
• Potentially raise concerns about the misuse of such compromises, particularly in cases involving undue influence or coercion.

Conversely, if the court rules against FIR quashing, it would reinforce the principle that FIRs must be quashed entirely or not at all, ensuring that justice follows a uniform and structured path.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Puneet Kumar @ Punit Kumar vs State of Haryana and Others is set to clarify an important aspect of Indian criminal law. If the court permits FIR quashing partially, it could serve as a major step in streamlining criminal justice, reducing pendency, and allowing minor players in a case to seek relief without affecting proceedings against others.

With the Supreme Court expected to issue its ruling in the coming months, all eyes are on this judgment, which will shape how FIR quashing impacts ongoing criminal proceedings.

Stay tuned for further updates on this landmark case!