Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Out Acceptance of Partial Settlements in Criminal Cases

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its ruling on Tuesday in Rakesh Das v. State of Haryana and Another, concluded that courts cannot accept partial compromises in criminal cases that might save certain accused parties from trial. This decision was made in response to a reference by a co-ordinate bench questioning the permissibility of accepting partial compromises given their potential effects on the trial of other accused parties. The Division Bench, led by Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma, emphasized that all accused must face trial jointly.

The Court reasoned that a partial compromise between a complainant or victim and only some of the accused would conflict with Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now replaced by Section 246 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Bench asserted that allowing piecemeal settlements could improperly shift control of the criminal justice process to the complainant or victim. Thus, courts should not accept or issue orders for partial settlements in the composition of criminal cases.

Addressing previous cases, the Court observed that single-judge benches had, at times, accepted piecemeal settlements contrary to the guidelines established by the Supreme Court regarding case quashing after compromises. It advised High Courts to exercise restraint in approving such settlements, as doing so could lead to inconsistent and problematic situations during trials.

The Court highlighted possible complications following acceptance of partial settlements. It noted that a complainant might later disavow a settlement, invalidating the composition order. Additionally, accused individuals not included in the compromise could argue that the ongoing trial unfairly targets them.

Further, the Bench noted that if the main accused were included in a compromise, it could impair the public prosecutor’s ability to establish joint criminal liability. Such compromises could compromise the integrity of the criminal justice system and disadvantage the complainant or victim, the Court concluded.

In this case, Advocate PS Ahluwalia served as amicus curiae.