The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday ruled that the courts cannot accept piecemeal compromises to save some of the accused in criminal cases [Rakesh Das v. State of Haryana and Another].
A Division Bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma said that all accused have to be tried jointly.
A piecemeal settlement between the complainant or victim and some of the accused would be in conflict with the mandate of Section 223 (what persons may be charged jointly) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which now stands substituted by Section 246 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), it ruled.
“To ensure that the victim/complainant, does not become the driver of the criminal justice system, through makings of piecemeal settlements, thereupons 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 Court concluded.
The Bench was answering a reference made by a co-ordinate bench on the question of whether a partial compromise in a criminal case can be accepted, considering the repercussions it may have on the trial of other accused.
The Court found that the acceptance of piecemeal settlements by various single-judge benches in the past was prima facie outside the contours of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court on quashing of cases after compromise between parties.
High Courts are required to exercise self-restraint on receiving piecemeal settlements, and subsequently, in making piecemeal orders of composition, it said.
It highlighted various conflicting situations that may arise during trial after the acceptance of piecemeal settlements. The Court said that the aggrieved party itself may become disempowered when confronted with the order of partial compounding of offences.
In case the complainant or victim during trial refuses to acknowledge the signing of the settlement, the order of composition may become vitiated, it added.
It further said that those accused with whom compromise was not made, may argue that the remaining trial was only a measure of wreaking vendetta against them.
“Naturally the proceedings in trial launched against the accused, who are left to be joined in the settlement, may ultimately become concluded to become embarked with the vice qua therebys there being not only an abuse of the process of law, but also the said proceedings being potentialized only to harass and humiliate the said accused,” the Court said.
The Court also flagged that if such 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, besides the casualty thereofs, thus would be the victim/complainant,” it opined.
Advocate PS Ahluwalia was amicus curiae in the case. He was assisted by Advocate Raunaq Singh Aulakh.
[Read Judgment]