No Scope for Partial Compromise in Criminal Proceedings: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Partial Compromises Disrupt Joinder of Trials and Prejudice Co-Accused: High Court Declines Partial Quashing of Criminal Cases. In a significant judgment delivered on November 12, 2024 a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeeti Sharma, addressed the contentious issue of whether partial compromises in criminal proceedings can form a basis for quashing First Information Reports (FIRs) or criminal trials. The court categorically ruled that partial compromises are impermissible as they conflict with statutory mandates and disrupt the integrity of criminal trials.

The court was called upon to decide whether a compromise between some parties—excluding others—could be the basis for quashing FIRs or proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now replaced by Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The court ruled: "Partial compromises cannot justify selective quashing of FIRs, as they violate the fundamental principle of joint trials mandated under Section 223 of the CrPC (now Section 246 of BNSS). Criminal proceedings involving multiple accused arising from the same transaction must proceed comprehensively unless specific discharge orders are passed."

The court emphasized that Section 223 CrPC and its equivalent Section 246 BNSS mandate joint trials of all accused involved in the same transaction. Partial quashing disrupts this statutory requirement, creating procedural and evidentiary complications.

"The statutory mandate of joinder of trials is essential to ensure a fair trial. Allowing partial compromises would prejudice the rights of co-accused and lead to inconsistencies in the administration of justice," the bench observed.

The court cautioned against victims or complainants attempting to dominate the criminal justice process by leveraging partial compromises to selectively target certain accused.

"The criminal justice system must be safeguarded from piecemeal settlements that undermine its integrity. Victims must not be permitted to become the drivers of criminal trials, as this could lead to abuse of process and selective prosecution," the court stated.

Citing precedents, the court reiterated that heinous offences or those against the state—such as corruption, terrorism, or rape—are non-compoundable and cannot be resolved through compromises. The interests of society must take precedence over private settlements.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), and Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012), which caution against the misuse of settlement provisions, particularly in cases involving public interest.

The court provided detailed illustrations of the potential ill-effects of partial compromises, including:

Prejudice to co-accused due to fragmented trials.

Evidentiary complications arising from inconsistent settlements.

Procedural difficulties for trial courts and prosecutors.

The weakening of charges against principal offenders due to selective settlements.

The court answered the issues referred to the larger bench as follows:

Issue 1: Can Partial Compromises Justify Quashing of FIRs?

"Partial compromises cannot form the basis for quashing FIRs or criminal proceedings, as they conflict with the statutory mandate of joint trials and risk prejudicing co-accused."

Issue 2: Do Partial Compromises Elevate the Victim’s Role to Driver of the Criminal Justice System?

"Yes, allowing partial compromises can empower victims to improperly influence the course of criminal proceedings, which must be avoided to maintain the sanctity of the justice system."

The court directed all single benches to refrain from accepting piecemeal settlements or issuing orders based on partial compromises. It further stressed that any settlement must be comprehensive, involving all parties and accused, to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements.

This judgment establishes that partial compromises cannot serve as a valid ground for quashing FIRs or criminal trials. It reinforces the importance of joint trials, procedural fairness, and protecting the integrity of the justice system. By rejecting piecemeal settlements, the court has ensured that criminal proceedings are not selectively manipulated, thereby upholding the rule of law.

Date of Decision: November 12, 2024