Quashing of Criminal Proceedings

Quashing of criminal proceedings means a High Court terminates an FIR, complaint or prosecution because allowing it to continue would be legally unjustified. It is an exceptional exercise of inherent powers or constitutional jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice, not a substitute for conducting a criminal trial.

Source and purpose of the power

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves the High Court’s inherent power to give effect to orders under the Sanhita, prevent abuse of court process and secure the ends of justice. Its predecessor was Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. High Courts may also exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to intervene against unlawful criminal proceedings.

When intervention is justified

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Supreme Court identified illustrative circumstances warranting intervention. These are guides rather than an exhaustive checklist.

• The allegations, even if accepted entirely at face value, do not establish an offence against the accused.
• The uncontroverted allegations and supporting evidence do not disclose the commission of an offence.
• The allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could find sufficient ground to proceed.
• An express legal bar, such as an applicable statutory prohibition on instituting or continuing proceedings, prevents prosecution.
• The proceedings are manifestly mala fide, or maliciously instituted to pursue an ulterior motive such as private vengeance.

Limits on judicial intervention

The power must be exercised sparingly and cautiously. At the quashing stage, the High Court ordinarily does not assess witness credibility, resolve disputed facts or conduct a mini-trial.

• The existence of a civil remedy does not justify quashing if the allegations also disclose a criminal offence.
• An allegation of personal hostility does not automatically invalidate a prosecution that otherwise discloses an offence.

Quashing following a settlement

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), the Supreme Court distinguished quashing from statutory compounding of offences. A genuine settlement may justify quashing in predominantly private disputes with an overwhelmingly civil character, depending on the circumstances and prospects of conviction.

• Heinous offences such as murder and rape cannot ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have settled, since their impact extends beyond the individuals involved.