Victims can’t drive criminal justice system through piecemeal settlements: Punjab and Haryana High Court

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 newly enacted 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 benches of the high court allowed the same, while others declined the relief.

“In some situations the victim may attempt to be the driver of the criminal justice system. But to ensure that the victim/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, nor they are required to be making piecemeal orders for the composition of offence,” 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 amity and 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 under Section 223 of the CrPC – now Section 246 of the BNSS – 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. The division bench found that these actions were prima facie outside the scope of guidelines outlined in the judgments, rendering such approaches “per incuriam” – or lacking legal standing within established law. The bench also suggested that the single benches should refrain from adopting such practices while ensuring alignment with binding legal precedents and statutory requirements.