Upgrad LLM

partial fir quashing allowed or not ?

Hi friends,


A FIR was registered U/S  420 , 467, 468, 471, 120 B against 15 persons. Now complainant has compromised  the matter with 5 persons but not with rest of the person.

I heard from someone that now partial FIR quash is not possible due to a recent judgement which said that full FIR be quashed instead of partial quash but i don't know which judgement.

So can you members please enlighten me more on this.

1. Can partial FIR quash is still possible after compromise ?

2. Any judgement which prohibits partial FIR quash on basis of compromise ?

Please help me.

Lawyer in Hyderabad.wats app no.9989324294

An FIR is an important document because it sets the process of criminal justice in motion. It is only after the FIR is registered in the police station that the police take up investigation of the case. Anyone who knows about the commission of a cognizable offence, including police officers, can file an FIR.There will be no partial FIR's.


@ Ramacharya




I am talking about partial FIR quash based on compromise. You have not understood the query i guess.

Lawyer/Fight for justice

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 March, 2014

Rathore Poonam

2014.03.05 16:41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document


CRM No. M-22486 of 2012 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 04.03.2014

Ajit Singh and another ....Petitioner(s)


State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s) ***


Present: Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. R.P.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.


M.M.S. BEDI, J (Oral)

The petitioners seek quashing of FIR on the basis of

compromise. The FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent

No.2. The compromise seems to have been effected between two out of

eight accused with the complainant. The partial quashing of FIR on the

basis of compromise does not appear to be appropriate in the present case.

It will be open to the petitioners to seek any relief i.e. of acquittal on the

ground of benefit of doubt or on the basis of compromise in case the matter

has been compromised.

In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is ordered

that in case an application is moved by the petitioners for personal

exemption during trial, the trial Court shall allow the same subject to any

conditions to be imposed. The petitioners may also avail the benefit of

compromise at any subsequent stage of the trial.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

March 04, 2014 (M.M.S. BEDI) poonam JUDGE

Lawyer/Fight for justice

It also depends on the facts of the each case.

You also go through the recent Judgement of Supreme court in respect of compromise/settlement

Gian singh vs state of Panjab 

dt. 24 sept. 2012


Thank you Mr. Sonawane.


FIR is not quashed but clear benefit to the accused in case trial goes on as they can easily say that matter has been compromised and should be acquitted. The rest will face the legal action. 


the same P&H High Court in one of its judgment allowed part quashing of FIR against certain accused.  But the same was a single judge bench judgment and the same was not followed subsequently by other benches.


the judgment mentioned above is a good one and can be beneficial for ur purpose.


Thanks Mr. Kiran.


Can you please give info about that judgement where partial fir quashing was allowed ? Please give the link.


Thank you.


Friends, today petition under 482 was filed in HC for quashing FIR on the basis of compromise.


Now i have few questions to ask.


1. All the accused have been named as respondents alongwith complainant with 1 accused which is a company being the petitioner.


So does this states that this is compromise with all accused ? Because if this was a partial compromise why would the accused with whom compromise is not made be made respondents ? Am i correct in my logic?


2. Its written in the petition that all the accused are arrayed as party in the present petition. It is also written that none of the accused is Proclaimed  Offender.


Does this line means that this is full compromise and the complainant can't  now speak against the accused with whom he had not yet compromised ? Or does this line states that compromise is done with all the accused ?


Please help me friends. This is really important for me.



Any learned member here to please reply on this.




Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


  Search Forum



CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x