Victims can’t drive criminal justice system through piecemeal settlements: HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that all disputes between parties are required to be resolved collectively for a settlement in criminal cases. The Bench made it clear that piecemeal settlements in criminal cases were inconsistent with established principles of law, particularly Section 482 of the CrPC and its corresponding provision in the BNSS.
The question for adjudication before the Bench was whether partial quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of partial compromise was permissible. The issue was raised after some HC Benches allowed the same, while others declined the relief.
Downside of fragmented compromise
* Piecemeal settlements that omit certain accused can weaken the prosecution, leaving excluded individuals vulnerable to trial without adequate support from the complainant
* If a victim or complainant is part of a fragmented compromise, they may be less able to reinforce charges against the remaining accused
*Partial settlements enable the defense to argue the settlement was influenced by external factors, potentially undermining the prosecution
*Victims may face intensified cross-examination from defense counsel, questioning the fairness and intentions behind the compromise
*In cases of vicarious liability, if the primary accused reaches a partial settlement, proving joint liability for co-accused becomes challenging, especially when the principal offender is omitted from the trial
*The court cautioned that piecemeal compromises can distort criminal proceedings, impeding fair justice for all parties
“In some situations the victim may attempt to be the driver of the criminal justice system. But to ensure that the victim or complainant, does not become the driver of the criminal justice system through making of piecemeal settlements, the courts are required to be not accepting any piecemeal settlements, rather are required to be rejecting piecemeal settlements...” the Bench asserted.
Taking up a bunch of 34 petitions against the States of Punjab and Haryana, the Bench asserted that the court’s power to quash criminal proceedings, based on a compromise, was limited to instances where a full and a joint compromise was reached among all relevant parties.
The Bench, for reaching the conclusion, drew heavily on precedents from the Supreme Court, including verdicts in the case of “Gian Singh versus the State of Punjab” and “Narinder Singh versus State of Punjab”. The judgments established that the high courts had discretionary power to quash proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, to prevent misuse of judicial processes provided that goodwill between parties was maintained.
In the 27-page judgment, the court added that a piecemeal compromise undermined the prosecution’s strength and impeded a fair trial. It held that any compromise omitting certain parties or defendants was in contravention of Section 246 of the BNSS, which mandated joint trials for all co-accused implicated in a single FIR. Accepting partial compromises could risk impairing the prosecution and the complainant’s ability to uphold the charges effectively, potentially leading to inconsistencies and partial justice.
Elaborating, the Bench observed partial compromises contradicted procedural mandates for joint trials which required accused named in a joint FIR to face a unified trial.
The Bench also made it clear that its plenary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC was meant to prevent abuse of judicial process and promote harmony between parties having resolved their disputes. The court, at the same time, made it clear that certain offenses, including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, UAPA, POCSO, and cases involving serious charges such as rape, remained outside the compositional authority, irrespective of any settlement.
The Bench added that offenses involving grievous harm or attempted murder necessitated careful consideration of factors such as the assault's location on the victim’s body, weapon type, and the authenticity of the compromise to ensure that settlements were not tainted by coercion or extrinsic inducements.
The court observed that Single Benches acted beyond established legal boundaries by accepting piecemeal settlements in certain cases and they should refrain from adopting such practices while ensuring alignment with binding legal precedents and statutory requirements.
