QUASHING OF FIR : TRADITION TO EVOLUTION
With the passage of time, the concept of quashing has evolved significantly.
It has moved beyond its traditional meaning to encompass various types or
categories of quashing. In simple terms, quashing refers to the dismissal or
voidance of charges or allegations mentioned in an FIR by a competent court. This
can occur either on the grounds of merit or as a result of a compromise and is
typically done under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution.
In recent years, there has been a notable shift in criminal jurisprudence from
completely quashing an FIR to quashing it partially, known as partial quashing of
the FIR. Partial quashing can take two forms:
1. QUASHING AGAINST ONE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
2. QUASHING OF SPECIFIC OFFENCES IN THE FIR
The Supreme Court has clearly stated that partial quashing of an FIR
regarding the offense and the offender is permissible. This can occur either when a
compromise has been reached or when a careful examination of the complaint/FIR
reveals that no offense is established against the accused. In such cases, the court is
fully empowered to exercise its inherent authority to partially quash the FIR
against a specific accused.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. v. State1,
NCT of Delhi, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India categorically held that
1Lovely Salhotra and Anr. v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2017 SCC Online SC 636.
“The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part
and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants-herein cannot be
allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2— herein
only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is
pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made
out against co- accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie. 7. Accordingly, we set aside
the order of the High Court and quash the FIR qua the appellants- herein.”
In a recent case, A.M. Mohan v. State represented through SHO of Police
& Anr.2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court utilized its inherent powers under Article 136
of the Constitution of India to quash an FIR against an accused who had appealed
to the court. The Supreme Court noted that the accused had not been assigned a
specific role in the alleged offense, and whatever role was attributed to the accused
was insufficient to warrant a conviction. Based on these considerations, the
Supreme Court decided to quash the FIR against the accused.
Many High Courts have also adopted a similar approach to prevent
unnecessary burden on the state machinery when an FIR does not establish an
offence. However, while courts have encouraged partial quashing of FIRs in the
interest of justice, they have also outlined precautions to be taken while exercising
this power.
For example, the Supreme Court has emphasized the need for a liberal
approach when considering partial quashing of FIRs. However, the Court has also
cautioned against quashing FIRs in cases involving allegations of "Corruption,"
even if there is a prima facie opinion that no case is made. In such situations, the
Supreme Court has advised a "Hands off" approach. This is because forming an
2A.M. Mohan v. State represented through SHO of Police & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339.
opinion solely on the basis of the investigation or FIR about whether an offence
under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been committed or not requires careful
consideration and should not be done hastily.
That the Hon’ble Supreme court in The State Of Chattisgarh & Anr v.
Aman Kumar Singh & Ors.3, (2023) 6 SCC 559 has held that “ It is desirable
that High Courts maintain a "hands-off" approach and not quash FIRs relating to
corruption cases at investigation stage-This is because, it is difficult to form an
opinion conclusively at the stage of reading a first information report that the
public servant is either in or not in possession of property disproportionate to the
known sources of his/her income. It would all depend on what is ultimately
unearthed after the investigation is complete -The considerations that could apply
to quashing of first information reports pertaining to offences punishable under
general penal statutes ex proprio vigore may not be applicable to a P.C. Act
offence”.
Therefore the courts have been rather cautious in quashing FIRs pertaining
to offences specifically under Prevention of Corruption Act, and in case it includes
offences other than PC act involving other statutes, then the FIR qua the other
statute can be quashed, but no quashing is permissible so far, when the offence
falls within the purview of the statute wherein it becomes impossible to form an
opinion as to whether or not an offence has been committed by a mere perusal of
the FIR and , thus, FIR cannot be quashed at such a premature stage . This is what
the Hon’ble Supreme court held in Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr.4.
3The State Of Chattisgarh & Anr v. Aman Kumar Singh & Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 559.
4Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 47.
To conclude, the evolution of quashing FIRs reflects a dynamic shift in legal
practices, moving beyond its traditional boundaries to encompass a variety of
approaches. Quashing, involving the dismissal or voidance of charges in an FIR by
a competent court, can now occur for specific individuals or offences within an
FIR, known as partial quashing. The Supreme Court has affirmed the legitimacy of
partial quashing, allowing it when a compromise has been reached or when the FIR
does not establish an offence against the accused. However, caution is advised,
particularly in cases involving allegations of corruption. The Court has advocated
for a "hands-off" approach in such cases, emphasizing the need for thorough
investigation before forming a conclusive opinion. This stance highlights the
complexity and sensitivity of legal proceedings, ensuring that justice is served with
diligence and fairness, ultimately shaping a more nuanced and balanced legal
landscape.
AUTHOR: Mr. R K Tarun, has been a practicing lawyer in the Supreme
Court of India and High Court of Delhi , for the past 25 years.
Aditi Shivadhatri , has been a practicing lawyer in Supreme court Of India
and High Court of Delhi
