“Quashing” is a legal term, the meaning of quashing is disposed of or finish a criminal case before the ending of the trial or passing judgment.  When a criminal case is registered against someone in the court either by the police or a person, the case must be proved by the complainant against the accused person and alleged accused person try to prove innocent to him before the trial court.

Our criminal legal procedure runs on the basis of two Pillars:

1. Indian Penal Code (I.P.C)

Our Indian Penal code describes, when a crime is committed by a person under what section he will be arrested i.e. given the name of the crime, how much the sentenced can be awarded to the offender, offense is cognizable or non-cognizable, before which court is tri-able and last is offense is compoundable or not compoundable.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C)

Our Criminal Procedure Code describes how the police and Court deal with a criminal case, and describe the power of the police and court.

Power to quash a Criminal Case

In our penal code offence divided into two categories compoundable and Non-Compoundable. 

What is compoundable? In simple meaning, cases that can be quashed by the trial court, for example when the parties of the case have settled the matter amicably or by the compromise. If the offence is compoundable then the trial court has power to quash the case but when the case is non-compoundable then only the High Court of the state and Supreme Court of India has the power to quash the case.

When the party wants to quash the case on merit then it doesn’t matter offence is compoundable or not, power is only given to the High Court and Supreme Court of India.

The Process of quashing is different from an appeal and revision case. The main difference is there no provision laid down in the Cr.p.c (Criminal Procedure Code of India) of quashing a case. Section 482 of the Cr.p.c give the inherent power to the Hon’ble High court and using of this inherent power, High court can quash the criminal case. For filing an appeal or revision petitioner have to wait for a specific stage of the case but as compared to appeal or revision, the petitioner can file the quashing petition before the Hon’ble High Court at any stage of the case if he has sufficient ground to file.Quashing of FIR ( Article 498-A)Nowadays, it is very easy for women to file FIR on the allegation of cruelty, and the husband and his family have to go through all the harassment and torture. To save themselves from all the torture the FIR can be quashed under Article 498-A. The case of 498- A can be quashed when there are vague allegations in the FIR. An FIR is a document for getting evidence against the accused. It must contain all the specific data required to satisfy an offence, and also must include material through which investigation may proceed.If an FIR misses facts then it is a vague FIR which can be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction of 482 CrPC.Section 482 o Cr.P.C says,“Saving of inherent powers of High Court Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”Some believe that if an FIR satisfies all the facts of an offence it is not the case for being fit for quashing but this proposition is untrue, there are categories of cases where inherent power can be exercised to quash the proceedings. 

1. Where it manifestly seems that there is a legal bar against the institution.
2. Where the allegations in the FIR or complaint was taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged.
3. Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. so lack of evidence is another ground for quashing proceedings.

The Supreme Court follows these broad principles in relation to Section 482 for quashing FIRs

• The jurisdiction of the High Court to quash an FIR or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been done between the offender and the victim is not the same as for compounding an offence.
• The High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 
• The decision to quash an FIR depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated
• Criminal cases from a commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions disputes fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
• The High Court exercising its power under Section 482 and dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the Offence.

Over time, the Supreme Court has established a set of tests and guidelines that the High Court must consider when utilizing its authority under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 to quash proceedings. These parameters serve as a framework for ensuring the proper exercise of this power:

Cognizant Reasoning: The High Court is required to provide clear and well-founded explanations for the exercise of its quashing power. This ensures transparency and accountability in its decision-making process. 

A charge sheet is a document prepared by the investigating agency or the police containing the details of the crime or charges against an accused, gathered by it during investigation. The report entails all the records right from the onset of investigation on filing of FIR till the completion of it when the final report is prepared and submitted. All the procedure relating to charge sheet is laid down under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 

The Charge Sheet comprises the name of the persons accused, the nature of information, names of those who appear to be acquainted with the facts of the case, whether any offence appears to be committed, whether the accused has been arrested, whether he has been released on a bond, whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170 CrPC. The offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are listed and described in the charge sheet, so that on its submission in court, proceedings against the accused can commence.

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code saves the inherent powers of the High Court wherein it can pass any order to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order passed under the Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court. These powers of the High Court can be invoked to quash any criminal proceeding against the accused. Whether a criminal proceeding/FIR or charge sheet are to be quashed- is determined by the court on the basis of the following factors:

(i)                 That in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Section, the court is required to examine whether the averments in the compliant or the charges framed constitute the essential ingredients of an offence alleged under the Indian Penal Code or when the charge sheet on the face of it does not make any offence.

(ii)               When there is lack of competency or jurisdiction of the trial court to try the case or there is a specific bar on the taking of cognizance.

There are some other grounds that have been elucidated through a catena of judgements by the apex court, some of which are reproduced hereinbelow:

In the case of Nagawwa v. V.S. Konjalgi[1] the hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the following cases the order of a Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside:

(1)  where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

(2)  where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(3)  where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4)  where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.

This provision reinstates that justice is paramount and that a litigant should not indulge in venting out its animosity or vindictiveness through a formal legal procedure against a person who may actually be innocent.

At the same time the Courts are cautious and with very great care consider all circumstances of the case before quashing a complaint or charge sheet.

Many times the Hon’ble courts do not quash the charge sheet but under peculiar circumstances direct the investigating agencies to further investigate the matter or even direct the accused to file discharge application before the court below and till such a decision is taken the accused may remain on bail (this depends on the discretion of the trial court). In many cases, the Hon’ble High Courts direct the trial court to consider the bail applications of the accused on the same day. 

Grounds for quashing an FIR are specific legal reasons that a court may consider when evaluating whether the FIR should be nullified or the criminal proceedings associated with it should be stopped.

These grounds vary based on the jurisdiction and legal principles, but a detailed overview of some common grounds for quashing an FIR is provided below:

1. Lack of Prima Facie Case: If upon a preliminary examination of the allegations and evidence, the court finds that there is insufficient or no credible evidence to support the charge made in FIR, it may quash the FIR.
2. Settlement between Parties: If the parties involved in the case, including the complainant and the accused have reached a compromise or settlement and the court is satisfied that the interests of justice are not compromised, it may quash the FIR. This is often seen in cases of minor offence or private disputes where parties prefer to settle amicably.
3. Abuse of Process of Law: If it is evident that the FIR has been lodged with malicious intent, mala fide motives, or solely to settle personal scores or harass the accused, the court may quash the FIR to prevent misuse of the legal system. The ground is invoked to protect individuals from vexatious litigation.
4. Violation of Fundamental Rights: If the FIR or the actions of the investigating agencies violate the fundamental rights of the accused, such as the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), the right against self-incrimination (Article 20), or the right to equality (Article 14), the court may intervene and quash the FIR.
5. No Legal Sanction for Prosecution: If the actions alleged in the FIR do not constitute a criminal offence under the applicable law, the court may quash the FIR. This is relevant when the allegations do not fulfil the essential elements required to prove the offence.
6. Factual Innocence: When it is proved beyond doubt that the accused is factually innocent of the alleged offence, the court may quash the FIR. This is relatively rare and usually occurs when new evidence emerges that irrefutably establishes the innocence of the accused.
7. FIR based on Frivolous or Unsubstantiated Grounds: If the FIR is based on trivial or unsubstantiated grounds, or if the allegations are patently false and fabricated, the court may quash the FIR.
8. Violation of Procedural Safeguards: If there are significant procedural irregularities or violations during the investigation, such as failure to follow proper search and seizure procedures, failure to inform the accused of his rights, or other breaches of due process, the court may consider quashing the FIR.
9. Double Jeopardy: If the accused has been prosecuted or punished for the same offence previously, quashing the FIR may be considered on the grounds of double jeopardy, which protects from trying a person twice for the same offence.
10. Prejudice to Fair Trial: If there is a reasonable apprehension that continuing with the criminal proceedings would lead to a prejudiced or unfair trial, the court may quash the FIR to uphold the principles of natural justice.
11. Civil in Nature: Where the complaint in FIR is civil in nature.