The recent protests spearheaded by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), triggered by the widespread NEET paper leak controversies, came to a halt only after the Central Government promised to concede to all their demands—including the immediate resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. However, the nature of these demonstrations took a alarming and dangerous turn on Monday, July 20.

On that day, the CJP decided to organize a march toward Parliament, where the Monsoon Session was set to convene, pushing directly through a high-security zone well beyond the designated Jantar Mantar site. It is critical to note that official permission for the demonstration was strictly confined to the Jantar Mantar area and explicitly prohibited movement beyond it.

The protestors remained encamped at Jantar Mantar until July 20, when an unauthorized march toward Parliament led to severe clashes with security personnel and incidents of stone pelting. Throughout the standoff, CJP leaders continued to aggressively press their demands while demonstrators effectively held the state to ransom by creating chaos on the streets of the national capital.

Are the CJP and Its Demonstrators Beyond the Reach of the Law?

Among the demands put forward by the CJP leadership was an explicit promise from the government that no coercive action would be taken against any of the demonstrators—including individuals who directly attacked police personnel, incited public disorder, and vandalized public property. Furthermore, they demanded the immediate withdrawal of all First Information Reports (FIRs) already registered against these individuals.

In effect, the party attempted to shield the very agitators who helped build pressure on the administration through violent means, ultimately triggering the necessary use of force by security forces. A detailed scrutiny conducted by the Delhi Police regarding individuals present at and around the Cockroach Janta Party’s protest site at Jantar Mantar revealed that a significant portion of the crowd possessed prior criminal records.

Surprisingly, and to the deep disappointment of law-abiding citizens across the nation, the Central Government conceded to this demand as well. This decision leaves ordinary citizens grappling with fundamental questions: Can an elected government be coerced into surrendering to anti-social elements? Should vandals who damaged not only physical assets but also the broader social fabric be allowed to walk free? From a strictly legal standpoint, does the executive branch possess the power to halt the course of law once it has been set in motion? Is the government legally empowered to simply withdraw FIRs filed against individuals who brought the state to a standstill? A direct examination of the legal framework provides clear answers to these queries.

A Crime Is a Fundamental Wrong Against the State

Under Indian criminal jurisprudence, an offense is viewed not merely as a dispute between private parties, but as a wrong committed against society as a whole. For this reason, whenever a crime occurs, the state steps in as the prosecutor to hold the offender accountable. This foundational principle serves as a legal safeguard designed to protect vulnerable victims and preserve public order. An essential extension of this safeguard is the rule that once the formal legal machinery is set in motion, it cannot be arbitrarily stopped without the explicit permission of the court.

Filing an FIR is primary mechanism used to initiate this legal machinery following the commission of a crime. Once an FIR is officially registered, it cannot be canceled or withdrawn simply by executive decree; it requires judicial approval. The underlying rationale for this rule is to prevent powerful or influential offenders from intimidating victims into abandoning legal action.

In the current scenario, despite the government’s assurance to withdraw all FIRs registered against violent protestors, it lacks the direct authority to do so on its own. However, specific legal mechanisms exist within the statutory framework that govern the potential withdrawal or termination of criminal proceedings.

An Out-of-Court Settlement

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, specific provisions allow parties involved in a criminal trial to settle a matter out of court without undergoing a full trial. However, this option is strictly limited to minor offenses that primarily affect private interests, which are categorized as compoundable offenses under the law.

Compoundable offenses are governed by Section 359 of the BNSS. Examples include simple hurt, cheating, house-trespass, certain instances of wrongful restraint, and theft. Conversely, severe offenses such as rape, murder, rioting, and dacoity are non-compoundable. While certain compoundable offenses may be settled directly between parties, others explicitly require prior judicial approval.

The government will not be able to utilize this route in the present context. The acts of violence recorded during the CJP protests—such as assaulting security personnel, throwing stones, and damaging police vehicles alongside public infrastructure—fall entirely outside the category of compoundable offenses.

Cancellation or Withdrawal of an FIR

It remains beyond the constitutional and legal power of the executive to unilaterally withdraw an FIR or drop a criminal case once it has been officially filed. The moment an FIR is registered, jurisdiction shifts to the judiciary. The executive branch cannot lawfully order a police station to rescind an FIR, nor can it command a magistrate to halt proceedings based on that report. This statutory separation ensures that victims and the state are protected from yielding to physical force or political pressure.

This reality raises a pivotal question: If the law does not grant the executive the authority to cancel or withdraw an FIR, why did the administration promise to clear all FIRs against violent protestors? The answer lies in alternative procedural mechanisms through which an accused person might be discharged, acquitted, or have their case closed—specifically via a police closure report.

The Mechanism of a Closure Report

A closure report (or final report) is submitted by the investigating agency under Section 193 of the BNSS upon the completion of an investigation. This report is filed when the police find no prima facie evidence indicating that the crime disclosed in the FIR occurred, when the accused cannot be traced, or when the initial complaint is found to be false.

However, the mere submission of a closure report does not automatically end a case; its acceptance rests entirely on the satisfaction of the court. If the court finds the investigation thorough and convincing, it may accept the closure report and close the proceedings. In such an event, the FIR remains on the official record, but active prosecution ceases. If the court is unsatisfied with the findings, it holds full authority to reject the report and order further investigation.

In the current situation, the police—acting under implicit directions from the government—might attempt this route by filing closure reports for the FIRs registered against violent agitators. Nevertheless, given that the entire nation, including the judiciary, witnessed the CJP protests turn violent on public broadcasts, with acts of destruction captured on mobile phones and CCTV cameras, successfully navigating this path presents a severe challenge for the administration. Ultimately, the final decision to accept any closure report remains entirely within judicial discretion.

Withdrawal of Prosecution

Another statutory method for halting criminal proceedings post-FIR registration involves the public prosecutor. Under Section 360 of the BNSS, a public prosecutor may apply to the court for permission to withdraw from the prosecution of a case. Here again, the ultimate authority rests exclusively with the bench.

To initiate this process, the public prosecutor must first demonstrate to the court that they have obtained the explicit permission of the Central Government to make the application. The court then thoroughly evaluates the request to verify that it is made in good faith, in the interest of public justice, free from improper political influence, and not designed to shield powerful individuals. Only if the court is satisfied that withdrawing the prosecution serves the broader interest of justice will permission be granted.

In this instance, where both the public destruction and the subsequent governmental assurance were widely publicized, convincing a court that dismissing these charges serves the interest of justice would be exceptionally difficult. Furthermore, the statute explicitly prohibits a public prosecutor from seeking withdrawal in cases involving damage to public property belonging to the Central Government. Consequently, FIRs documenting clear damage to central public assets cannot be lawfully withdrawn under this provision.

Quashing of FIRs by Higher Courts

The Supreme Court and the various High Courts hold inherent powers to quash an FIR to prevent the abuse of the legal process and to secure the ends of justice. These extraordinary powers are exercised sparingly, reserved for situations where the court is fully convinced that intervention is required to deliver complete justice. However, the facts of the current situation do not align with these criteria. Quashing FIRs against individuals who publicly participated in acts of violence and destruction would run directly counter to the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court's Directive for an Independent Investigation

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has adopted a strict stance on the matter, affirming that anyone who took the law into their own hands during the CJP protests must face the legal consequences. The court issued an interim order permitting law enforcement authorities to proceed with their ongoing investigations into the registered FIRs.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant emphasized that an independent probe must thoroughly investigate the allegations against both the police and the protestors. However, the Apex Court also directed state authorities where parallel protests occurred to release individuals who have no prior criminal record.

This judicial position stands in direct contrast to the expectations of the CJP leadership, whose actions suggest a belief that their supporters are exempt from statutory oversight. The CJP sought to secure total immunity for perpetrators of violence, attempting to leverage political assurances to bypass legal accountability. Such demands to grant immunity to individuals engaging in illegal acts lack both a valid legal foundation and a moral justification.

In a civilized society governed by constitutional principles, individuals cannot evade statutory accountability through informal or political agreements. For a functional democracy anchored in the rule of law, it is essential that all individuals who violate the law face the consequences of their actions. Allowing anti-social elements to go unpunished after openly engaging in violence undermines the legal order and risks creating a state of anarchy—the very outcome the CJP claims to oppose.