The high number of criminal dossier due to the limitations of the judiciary, both in terms of manpower and credit, and in terms of time, leads to inflation of the dossier and double pressure on judicial authorities and issuing wrong decisions, which prolongs the investigation process. Thus, in the legal systems of different countries, alternatives to criminal process have emerged over the last three decades to control the overcrowding and speed up the criminal response to petty crimes. In these alternative processes, the prosecutor enters into negotiations directly with the perpetrator, and after admitting their guilt and taking certain actions specified by the prosecutor, leads to the cessation of the public prosecution and the resolution of the case at the stage of the prosecution. In this regard, the leading research with a descriptive-analytical (critical) approach has examined the position of alternatives to public prosecution in the two legal systems of Iran and France. In the end, it was conclude that the Iranian legislature does not have a systematic and clear position on alternatives to public prosecution of natural and legal persons. According to the comparative study, it has been suggested that, considering the principle of the necessity of prosecution, more trust be placed in the prosecutors and that the mentioned alternatives be enacted in a separate chapter with the goals predetermined in the criminal code.