This article is written by Ms. Anagha Suresh Manian from Asian Law College, Noida. It talks about the scope of compromise and settlement deed in criminal cases in India. It also lays down the legal framework of compromise and settlement deed.
Introduction
Compounding is a statutory process by which certain criminal offences are settled by persons legally authorised to compound them. The compounding offences are those listed in Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)[1]. Section 359 of the BNSS provides a statutory mechanism for compounding specified offences. Depending upon the offence, composition may be effected without the permission of the Court or only with the permission of the Court. An offence not included within Section 359 cannot be compounded merely because the parties have entered into a settlement.
Compounding is different from a private settlement between the parties of a dispute. The compromise deed does not bring an end to criminal proceedings by its mere existence. The validity and effect of a settlement largely depend on the nature of the offence whether it falls within the offences permitted to be compounded under Section 359 of the BNSS or whether the matter may instead call for the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Compounding and quashing are not two sides of the same coin even though they may look similar. Section 359 of BNSS provides for a possibility of compounding of certain offenses as per the requirement of the parties. On the other hand, the powers of the High Court are provided by Section 528 of BNSS[2] to quash proceedings whenever it is warranted.
Legal Framework
Under Section 320[3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), certain offences were compoundable either by the parties thereto without the permission of the court under Section 320(1)[4] or with the court’s permission under Section 320(2)[5]. The provision also specified about the persons competent to compound the offence and stated that compounding of such offences would have an effect of acquittal of the offender.
Under Section 359 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 320 of CrPC provides for compounding of certain offences. The offences mentioned are either compoundable despite no permission from the court or require permission from the court to compound. Offences not mentioned in this section cannot be compounded merely by reason of settlement between the parties.
Compounding and quashing are not synonymous. In Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v. State of Maharashtra[6], the Bombay High Court made a clear distinction between the two. It held that compounding is governed by the statutory framework of Section 320 of CrPC while quashing is an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, an offence which is non-compoundable cannot be compounded although in certain cases, the quashing of proceedings may be directed to achieve the ends of justice.
Section 528 of BNSS corresponds to Section 482 of CrPC[7] and preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. The existence of a settlement is only a relevant consideration and does not, by itself, require the High Court to quash criminal proceedings.
What can a Compromise/Settlement Deed do?
Facilitate compounding
A compromise deed can assist in the process of compounding the offences that according to the law are compoundable. The offences may be compoundable in the absence of court’s approval or with the approval of the court as the law provides. In the situations when the law permits the compounding of offences with the court approval, the court examines the case to ensure that the statutory requirements on compounding offences have been satisfied. Once the composition is lawfully made, it results in an acquittal under Section 359 of BNSS.
Support quashing in appropriate cases
A compromise deed can also help in quashing the proceedings of non-compoundable offences in certain circumstances. The High Court can quash the proceedings on the grounds of being a private dispute by using its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS. However, the High Court will only quash the ongoing criminal proceedings if it deems that the continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of process or if they will not serve the ends of justice. This is applicable in matters matrimonial, commercial, property or other private disputes. A settlement deed is not an automatic answer to quashing the criminal proceedings.
The High Court assesses various factors like the seriousness of the offence, the genuineness of the settlement, the conduct of the parties and the public interest before granting such a request. Thus, the settlement deed can be used as a consideration to quash the proceedings but it is not a definitive factor. The Court must be satisfied that the dispute is private in nature and that there is no public interest in continuing with the criminal proceedings. A serious or otherwise heinous crime with significant public interest implications is ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a private settlement.
Demonstrate voluntary resolution
The deed can help demonstrate that the parties voluntarily resolved the dispute and may be used as evidence of the settlement. This may be helpful in supporting an application by the parties for compounding or for quashing of proceedings, in appropriate cases.
What a Compromise/Settlement Deed cannot do?
Cannot automatically terminate criminal proceedings
Merely entering into a private settlement does not terminate an FIR, nor does it end police investigation or proceeding in the trial court. In appropriate cases, the settlement must be acted upon through the appropriate legal procedure, such as obtaining an order for compounding or, where permissible, seeking quashing of the proceedings by the High Court.
Cannot override the statutory bar on compounding
The parties entering into settlement agreements do not succeed in making the offence compoundable where the offence is non-compoundable as provided in Section 359 of BNSS. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)[8], recognised that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction is distinct from statutory compounding and may, in appropriate cases, be exercised to quash criminal proceedings arising from disputes that are predominantly private or civil in nature, where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process or would not serve the ends of justice.
Compromise does not guarantee quashing or acquittal
Even if the complainant is in favour of the settlement, the High Court can decide whether or not to proceed with the case. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014)[9], the Supreme Court held that while the High Court was entitled to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, it had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence and whether the dispute was of a purely private character. The Court stated that allegations under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [10] (IPC, Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] need to be viewed carefully as they cannot be simply ignored because the complainant has settled his private civil rights. Thus, mere settlement of the dispute was not enough to extinguish criminal liability.
Compromise cannot ordinarily defeat the public interest involved in prosecuting heinous or serious offences
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019)[11], the Supreme Court stated that offences that are serious or heinous in nature, offences involving moral turpitude, or offences having a serious impact upon society cannot be quashed only because the parties have settled matters. The Court must also consider the antecedents and conduct of the accused and the circumstances in which the compromise was entered into. It said that before agreeing to any settlement, the High Court had to consider the seriousness of the offence, the conduct of the accused and whether the dispute was truly private in nature.
A settlement deed is thus not compounding nor quashing itself but is a document reflecting the parties’ agreement and may provide the basis for a statutory remedy or an inherent judicial remedy.
Conclusion
A compromise or settlement deed can have a bearing on criminal proceedings to the extent that it may help in meeting the requirements of statutory compounding where the same is permissible and as may be applicable to quash cases of non-compoundable offences in so far as they involve mainly private disputes. However, it must also be borne in mind that it cannot override statutory bars or constraints and it cannot oblige a court to quash proceedings nor can it independently conclude criminal proceedings. The importance of a settlement deed in criminal cases is that it provides proof that the parties involved have reached an agreement in their case. However, the legal question of whether this agreement can be enforced is up to the courts to decide depending on the nature of the specific offence and the considerations of public policy.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Can a criminal case be quashed after settlement?
Yes, in appropriate cases. The High Court may consider a genuine settlement while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, particularly where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process or would not serve the ends of justice.
Can non-compoundable offences be quashed on compromise?
Yes, in appropriate cases involving private disputes, but not ordinarily for serious offences against society.
Is settlement enough to end a criminal case?
No. A settlement deed by itself does not terminate criminal proceedings. Where the offence is compoundable, the parties may seek composition under Section 359 of the BNSS. In an appropriate case involving a non-compoundable offence, the parties may seek quashing by the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.
What factors does the Court consider?
The Court considers the nature of the offence, genuineness of settlement, victim’s consent, and public interest.
Is quashing the same as compounding?
No. Compounding is permitted only for specified offences, while quashing is an inherent power of the High Court.
Note: The content on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Dharma Rath Sarthi Legal Consultancy does not assume liability for any action taken in reliance on this content. Readers are advised to seek independent legal counsel for advice specific to their circumstances.
References:
[1] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 359, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
[2] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 528, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
[3] The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, S. 320, India Code (1974).
[4] The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, S. 320(1), India Code (1974).
[5] The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, S. 320(2), India Code (1974).
[6] Abasaheb Yadav Honmane & Ashwini Abasaheb Honmane v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (2) MhLJ 856 (Bom.) (F.B.).
[7] The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, S. 482, India Code (1974).
[8] Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303.
[9] Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466.
[10] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 307, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
[11] State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688.