Explain the terms “Trafficking relating to public offices and titles” and “Stifling prosecution” as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Trafficking relating to Public Offices and titles: An agreement to trafficking in public office is opposed to public policy, as it interferes with the appointment of a person best qualified for the service of the public. Public policy requires that there should be no money consideration for the appointment to an office in which the public is interested. The following are the examples of agreements that are void since they are tantamount to sale of public offices. (1) An agreement to pay money to a public servant in order to induce him to retire from his office so that another person may secure the appointment is void. (2) An agreement to procure a public recognition like Padma Vibhushan for reward is void. Stifling Prosecution: An agreement to stifle prosecution i.e. “an agreement to present proceedings already instituted from running their normal course using force” tends to be a perversion or an abuse of justice, therefore, such an agreement is void. The principle is that one should not make a trade of felony. The compromise of any public offence is generally illegal. For example, when a party agrees to pay some consideration to the other party in exchange for the later promising to forgo criminal charges against the former is an agreement to stifle prosecution and therefore is void. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is however, a statutory list of compoundable offences and an agreement to drop proceeding relating to such offences with or without the permission of the Court, as the case may be, in consideration the accused promising to do something for the complainant, is not opposed to public policy.