Supreme Court to examine permissibility of piecemeal compromises in criminal cases

In Puneet Kumar @ Punit Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others (2024), Supreme Court's bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti  issued notice on a plea challenging a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it has been contended that courts cannot accept piecemeal compromises in criminal cases. 

Notably, High Courts have taken contrary positions in this regard. The issue to be considered is whether on the basis of the compromise reached between the informant and the petitioner (one of the accused),  the quashing of the FIR on the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should have been ordered by the Court. In this case, the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was roped in on the basis of the statement by a co-accused. 

The Court observed: "On the legal aspect, the counsel draws the attention of the Court to the chart at “Page-D” to point out that different High Courts had taken contrary positions on the issue as to whether on the face of compromise with one or few of the accused in the case, the case can be part quashed by the Court".  The Court issued the notice on December 18, 2024.

The High Court in question has held that piecemeal settlement between the complainant or victim and some of the accused would be in conflict with the mandate of Section 223 (what persons may be charged jointly) of CrPC. This Section had now been numbered as Section 246 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

In Rakesh Das v. State of Haryana and Another, the High Court's division bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma has passed their judgement on November 12, 2024. It ruled that the courts cannot accept piecemeal compromises to save some of the accused in criminal cases. It observed that if such piecemeal compromises are allowed public prosecutors would be unable to prove the joint criminal liability in the case. If relief is granted in piecemeal manner it will have ramifications on the trial of other accused persons. 

The interim order dated December 18, 2024 reads:"In the meantime, the trial may continue but not qua the petitioner."