Courts Are Required To Be Not Accepting Any Piecemeal Settlements In Criminal Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that courts cannot accept partial or piecemeal compromises in criminal cases that would allow certain accused individuals to be exonerated while others face trial.
This decision came in response to a reference made by a co-ordinate bench regarding whether partial compromises could be accepted in criminal cases, considering the potential impact on the trial of the remaining accused.
A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma clarified that all accused in a criminal case must be tried jointly, as mandated under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which has now been substituted by Section 246 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
“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 said.
The Court emphasized that allowing piecemeal settlements—where the complainant or victim reaches individual agreements with some of the accused—would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system.
The Bench further explained that piecemeal settlements could distort the criminal trial process, as they could enable the victim or complainant to effectively control the course of justice. This would create situations where the case could be skewed based on partial compromises, resulting in an unfair trial for the remaining accused.
The Court also pointed out the potential consequences of accepting such piecemeal settlements. For instance, it noted that if the victim later refuses to recognize the settlement during the trial, it could render any order of composition (compromise) void. Moreover, the accused who were not part of the settlement might argue that the ongoing trial is nothing more than a form of harassment or vendetta.
Advocate PS Ahluwalia served as amicus curiae in the case, with the assistance of Advocate Raunaq Singh Aulakh and Additional A.G. Ankur Mittal appeared for the Respondent.
The Bench further observed that allowing a compromise with one or more of the accused—especially if it involved the principal accused—could create difficulties in proving the joint criminal liability of all involved. This, in turn, could lead to an incomplete or flawed trial, weakening the prosecution’s case and undermining the public interest in criminal justice.
The Court cautioned, “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 found that the practice of accepting piecemeal settlements in the past, as seen in rulings from various single-judge benches, fell outside the Supreme Court's guidelines concerning the quashing of cases after compromise between parties.
The Court urged High Courts to exercise self-restraint when dealing with piecemeal settlements and to avoid making piecemeal orders for the composition of offences. The Bench’s observations reflect a broader concern about maintaining the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice process, ensuring that no party, including the accused, is subjected to undue harm or injustice during the trial.
Cause Title: Rakesh Das & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., [2024:PHHC:147654-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates P.S. Ahluwalia, Raunaq Singh Aulakh, D.S. Matya, Rajesh Chaudhary, Gurmail Singh Duhan, Himanshu Choudhary, Govind Chauhan, P.P.S. Duggal, K.S. Dadwal, Himanshu Choudhary, Viney Saini, Harparteek Singh Sandhu, Harsh Vasu Gupta, Puneet Sharma, Vishal Sharma, Ramnish Puri, Monika Tanwar, Sukhdeep Singh, Puneet Kapoo, Inderpal Singh, Puja Chopra, Vimal Kumar Gupta, R.S. Sidhu
Respondents: Advocates Ankur Mittal, Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Saurabh Mago, Kushaldeep Kaur, Saanvi Singla, Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Maninder Singh, Akhil Sharma, Brahmjot Singh Nahar, Arav Gupta, Rajesh Chaudhary, Gurmail Singh Duhan, Gurpreet Kaur
