The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that partial compromise with certain accused in a criminal case, where there are multiple accused, cannot be allowed.

A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudepti Sharma said, “To ensure that the victim/complainant does not become the driving force of the criminal justice system, by entering into settlements piecemeal, courts are then required not to accept any piecemeal settlements, but rather to reject settlements on an ad hoc basis, nor are they required to do so. required to make piecemeal orders for the composition of the offense.“

Noting that “there are no explicit guidelines governing the issue”, a single judge referred the question – whether partial compromise constitutes a ground for quashing the FIR only as some of the accused – to the entire court.

The single judge was concerned that the partial annulment of criminal proceedings, on the basis of a partial compromise, elevates the status of victim from that of actor to that of driver of the criminal justice system?

By answering the first question in the negative, the Court demonstrated that a piecemeal settlement between the complainant or victim and some of the accused would be in conflict with the mandate of Section 223 (which persons can be jointly charged) of the CrPC , which has now been replaced by Article 246 of the BNSS.

The Court highlighted the conflicts and “bad situations” that could result from partial compromise in this case.

The court gave examples of vicarious liability cases and said that if the case is compromised with the main offender, then complicity in the crime or only those who destroyed the evidence will be left to face trial.

He added that defendants with whom no compromise has been reached can argue that the trial was opened “only to harass and humiliate them.”

“Naturally, the legal proceedings launched against the accused, who must be associated with the settlement, can ultimately be concluded to be initiated with the converse that there is thus not only an abuse of the legal procedure, but also that said procedure is potential solely to harass and humiliate the said accused,» added the Court.

The bench concluded that the High Court should exercise “restraint” in accepting settlements on an ad hoc basis.

Title: Rakesh Das v. State of Haryana and another (along with other related matters)

Click here to read/download the order