Evan V

The Supreme Court has appointed Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar as amicus curiae to assist on a legal issue concerning the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and the corresponding provision, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita): whether criminal proceedings can be quashed only against one among several accused on the basis of a compromise between the informant and that accused.

A Division Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N.K. Singh passed the order in a case where the complainant and one accused are stated to have entered into a settlement and sought quashing of the FIR only qua that accused.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Directions For Enforcement Of Solid Waste Management Rules 2026

The FIR in question has been registered under Sections 120B, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner first approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking relief under a compromise.

During the proceedings before a Single Judge, the High Court called for a report from the jurisdictional Magistrate, who confirmed that the compromise had been entered into voluntarily. However, in view of the absence of a clear guiding precedent on the issue, the Single Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench.

By judgment dated November 12, 2024, the Division Bench answered the reference by holding that partial quashing of an FIR is not permissible.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Pranjal Kishore submitted that the High Court’s view is contrary to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, including Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat (2012) and Lovely Salhotra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018).

It was argued that in Jayrajsinh, the Supreme Court granted quashing in respect of a non-compoundable offence on the basis of compromise, and that Lovely Salhotra recognised the permissibility of quashing proceedings against some accused where no offence was made out against them. On that basis, the petitioner contended that partial quashing is legally maintainable in appropriate cases.

Also Read: Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Be Justified Solely By Gravity Of Allegations; J&K&L High Court Grants Bail To Relatives Accused Of Abetment In POCSO Case

Counsel also submitted that the petitioner was not originally named in the FIR and was subsequently arrayed as an accused on the basis of a co-accused’s statement. While issuing notice, the Supreme Court had stayed the trial proceedings only qua the petitioner.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pranjal Kishore, AOR Mr. Aman Bansal, Adv. Mr. Nagarjun Sahu, Adv.

For the 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.

Case Title : Puneet Kumar @ Punit Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. 

Case No.: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 17731/2024

Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N.K. Singh