Mediator Exceeded Authority By Attempting To Compound Non-Compoundable Offence: Delhi HC Frames Guidelines For Mediators

A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Shrma held that “the mediator went beyond the scope of mediated settlement agreements as per principles of mediation that a non-compoundable offence could not have been compounded by way of a settlement in which the sentence is up to seven years and is a sessions triable case.”

The complainant claimed that Bacchu Singh, who works at a neighbor's factory, abused him and inflicted physical harm when he intervened. Co-accused joined in, causing further injuries. The complainant's family took him to a hospital, where his statement was recorded, leading to the FIR. The parties later settled amicably, signing an MoU for Rs. 40,000. It was mentioned during arguments that Rs. 30,000 in cash was to be paid to the complainant for the purpose of quashing the FIR.

Advocate Mukesh Verma appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate Naresh Kumar Chahar appeared for the Respondents.

The Court highlighted that established precedents, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbhatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, offer comprehensive guidelines for quashing FIRs based on settlements. These cases create a framework for assessing such scenarios involving non-compoundable offenses. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. safeguards the High Court's inherent powers to prevent process abuse and ensure justice, distinct from compounding offenses under Section 320.

The Court examined a settlement agreement presented for the quashing of an FIR based on principles of law. The mediated settlement agreement was detailed, indicating the parties' intention to end criminal proceedings through compounding or quashing, with a specified payment of money. However, the agreement involved a serious non-compoundable offense, which led to the Court's assessment of its validity.

The Court observed that the mediator went beyond their jurisdiction by attempting to compound a non-compoundable offense, which can only be quashed. The agreement's language and intent were found misleading as they suggested that serious offenses could be settled through payments. The Court emphasized that quashing such offenses is a discretionary decision based on established principles.

“It is noted that quashing of the FIR of such offences is purely a discretion vested in the Court which is to be exercised with care, caution and with circumspection according to the principles in this regard laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, settlement of non-compoundable offences through mediated settlement agreements is not permissible.”

Considering the unique circumstances, the Court decided to quash the FIR but imposed costs on the petitioners for misinterpreting the agreement. The Court also laid down guidelines for mediators, clarifying that non-compoundable offenses cannot be settled through payments.

“In such cases where one FIR is under compoundable offence and the other under non-compoundable offence, it should be specified that mere presence of the complainant before the Court does not, as a matter of right, confer a right on the accused persons to seek quashing of the FIR as it is discretion of the Court which is to be exercised depending on facts and circumstances of the case.”

The Court urged mediators to ensure parties understand enforceability, justice procedures, and legal consequences.

“The mediators at the end of mediated settlement agreement must mention in the cases as the present one i.e. non-compoundable cases where the parties want the FIR to be quashed in clear terms that quashing of the FIR is the discretion of the Court and the case being non- compoundable, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case FIR may or may not be quashed by the Court, it becomes relevant and important to do so in situations where both the parties have filed cases against each other and the agreement is based upon settlement that both will be withdrawing cases against each other.”

Accordingly the Court disposed of the Petition.

Cause Title: Abhishek & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment