Close cases if both sides settle: ‘Only cases of personal feuds can be closed with consent’ SC

Contributed by Deepak Miglani and Dinesh Miglani

Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code deals with Compounding of Offences. There are some offences which affect the private individual alone and do not injure the society. Therefore those offences which affect the individuals alone and are not of grave nature may be compounded by consent of the parties under subsection 1 of this section. Offences covered by table to sub-section (1) can be compounded even without permission of the Court. Under sub-section (2) permission of the Court is necessary for compounding a case even by consent of the parties because the offences mentioned under this sub-section are graver one.

Courts generally close only cases involving criminal offence of a compoundable nature. Compounding a case means no punishment is given, though the case is not erased from the records.

The SC has now laid down that courts can allow closure of criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences if both sides are agreeable.

This ruling came on a petition filed by one Madan Mohan Abbot, who challenged a trial court’s decision not to close the case on the basis of a compromise reached between him and the complainant. The trial court said that one of the offences alleged against Abbot related to criminal breach of trust involving an amount in excess of Rs 250 and was hence non-compoundable. The Punjab government opposed Abbot’s petition for closure of the case.

The apex court, after perusing the evidence on record, said the dispute was purely personal in nature arising from the extensive business dealings between the parties and that there was no public policy involved in the allegations levelled against each other.

Regarding its decision to order closure of the case by compounding the offence, the Bench said: “This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law.”

The SC has laid down that courts can allow closure of criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences if both sides have agreed to bury the hatchet.

However, while passing the order, SC, cognisant of the possibility of the intimidation by an influential party, made it a point to stress that such closures could be resorted to only in cases arising from personal feuds and which did not involve serious and heinous offences.

“We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings,” a Bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and H S Bedi said.

“Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation,” it said.

The Times of India 30 March 2008 Delhi P. 17
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd

For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in