Note: This story has not been edited by LegalSeva and is generated from a news syndicate feed. 

Partial compromise can’t be accepted: HC

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that a partial compromise in a criminal case cannot be accepted, as it would have serious repercussions on the trial of other accused in the same case.

“If such a compromise is made with the main accused, the public prosecutor may become disabled to prove the joint criminal liability in the case. The casualty would be the criminal administration system, be sides the casualty thereofs, thus would be the victim /complainant,” the HC has held.

A division bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma has passed these orders while deciding a reference received from the со- ordinate bench of the HC in view of conflicting orders on the issue. The issue referred before the bench was if the partial quashing of criminal proceedings can be permitted on the basis of partial compromise. The two primary issues for adjudication before the bench were: (1) whether, given the implica tions of partially quashing an FIR on the trial of other co-accused, a partial compromise can nonetheless serve as a valid basis for quashing the FIR with respect to only some of the accused, and (2) whether partially quashing criminal proceedings based on a partial compromise elevates the role of the victim from that of a stakeholder to a driver within the criminal justice system.

Answering the first issue, the bench headed by Justice Sureshwar Thakur held that there is a requirement of exercising self-restraint by the high court, in receiving piecemeal settlements, and, also subsequently in making piecemeal orders of composition. The bench was of the view that following a piecemeal settlement, havoc would be caused not only to the criminal administration system, but also to the trite underpinning thereof, that no damage accrues to the moral conscience of society nor the moral conscience of the society becoming shaken. Responding to the second issue, the bench held that 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 makings of piecemeal settlements, there upon 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.

In its detailed order, the bench further explained that a situation that could arise from a piecemeal order of settlement particularly one that excludes the principal offender is that it could create significant complications when the roles of the accused are closely interlinked.

“This includes cases where others involved are classified as accessories (before, during, or after the crime). Consequently, this could provide the main offender with a means to pressure the victim, informant, eyewitnesses, or recovery memo witnesses,” the bench has held.

For case specific advice, get in touch with best Criminal FIR Quashing Lawyers Punjab and Haryana High Court District Court Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Derabassi Kharar.

More on 99888-17966

Quashing Lawyers Punjab and Haryana High Court