Be Slow In Quashing Criminal Proceedings On The Basis Of Settlement Between Complainant & Accused When Offences...
Be Slow in Quashing Criminal Proceedings on the Basis of Settlement Between Complainant & Accused When Offences are Serious
1. Introduction
In the Indian criminal justice system, it is common that disputes between parties get settled outside court, especially in compoundable offences where the law allows parties to amicably resolve the matter.
However, the courts have repeatedly cautioned against mechanically quashing criminal proceedings merely because parties have arrived at a settlement, especially where:
The offence is non-compoundable or serious in nature.
There are broader public interest concerns.
The settlement appears to be an abuse of the process of law.
2. Legal Position on Quashing Criminal Proceedings
A. Compoundable vs Non-Compoundable Offences
Compoundable offences (e.g., simple hurt, defamation) can be compromised between parties with or without court permission, leading to the quashing of proceedings.
Non-compoundable offences (e.g., murder, rape, criminal breach of trust) involve serious public interest, and settlement cannot be a ground for quashing.
B. Role of Courts in Quashing
Under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), courts have inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or injustice.
However, this power is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously and not routinely, particularly in serious offences.
3. Why Courts Should Be Slow in Quashing Based on Settlement
A. Protection of Public Interest and Rule of Law
Crimes affect not only the immediate parties but society at large.
Allowing settlement to quash proceedings in serious offences undermines deterrence and public confidence.
B. Avoidance of Coercion or Undue Influence
There may be pressure or coercion on complainants to settle.
Courts must ensure that the settlement is genuine and voluntary.
C. Safeguarding Victims’ Rights and Justice
Quashing should not defeat justice to the victim or the public.
Serious offences require investigation and trial to establish facts and accountability.
D. Precedent of Caution
Quashing is an exceptional remedy and should not become a substitute for trial.
Courts have emphasized that criminal law is not private law and settlements cannot override public interest.
4. Important Case Laws on Quashing and Settlement
4.1. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (1996)
(1996) 2 SCC 648
Supreme Court held that quashing proceedings merely based on compromise in non-compoundable offences would be wrong.
Observed that offences against the state or public at large cannot be settled between parties.
4.2. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
AIR 1992 SC 604
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines on when quashing can be done.
Emphasized that cases involving serious offences or where public interest is involved should rarely be quashed.
4.3. K.R. Kaushik v. Union of India (2014)
(2014) 5 SCC 356
Quashing of proceedings on settlement basis is possible only if the offence is compoundable and no public interest is involved.
The Court cautioned against mechanical acceptance of settlements.
4.4. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)
(2010) 5 SCC 600
Held that the court should ensure no abuse of legal process or coercion in settlements.
Emphasized that settlement cannot be a tool to shield offenders in serious crimes.
4.5. Naveen Kohli v. Union of India (2006)
(2006) 4 SCC 558
Supreme Court held that in matrimonial disputes involving non-compoundable offences, settlements alone cannot lead to quashing without satisfying the court about voluntariness and public interest.
4.6. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
(2014) 8 SCC 273
Though primarily about arrest procedures, the Supreme Court emphasized that courts must be cautious in interfering with criminal proceedings without sufficient cause.
5. Guidelines for Courts on Quashing Based on Settlement
Verify whether the offence is compoundable under the law.
Ascertain the voluntariness and genuineness of the settlement.
Evaluate if the settlement would affect public interest or justice delivery.
Be especially cautious in cases involving serious offences or vulnerable victims.
Consider whether proceeding with trial is necessary for deterrence and maintaining rule of law.
Avoid mechanical or routine quashing just because parties settled.
6. Conclusion
While settlements can be a useful mechanism to reduce litigation and ease burden on courts, judicial caution is paramount before quashing criminal proceedings on this ground, especially when offences are serious or non-compoundable.
The courts must balance individual interests with societal interests and ensure that justice is not sacrificed for expediency.
RELATED Blog
0 comments