Compromise in Criminal cases

Compromise in Criminal cases:

(1)Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303],

(2)B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675],

(3)Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677],

(4)Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466];

(5) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307]

It is observed as under:

“If the offences against women and children and the IPC offences falling under the categories, like, murder, attempt to murder, offence against unsound mind, rape, bribe, fabrication of documents, false evidence, robbery, dacoity, abduction, kidnapping, minor girl rape, idol theft, preventing a public servant from discharging of his/her duty, outrage of woman modesty, counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes, etc., are allowed to be compounded, it will surely have serious repercussion on the society, as the above mentioned list is only illustrative and not exhaustive.

Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences clubbed with Special Enactment, like Arms Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, TNPPDL Act, TNPID Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.

As held by the Apex Court, insofar the offences arising out of matrimonial dispute, relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, are concerned, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, in case the parties resolve their entire disputes amicably among themselves.

This Court feels that there cannot be any compromise in respect of the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity and in that case, the Court should be very slow in accepting the compromise.

If the compromise is entertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand.

The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by the accused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion.

The antecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration before accepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.”