Alternative Dispute Resolution In Criminal Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Criminal Law
What is ADR?
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to mechanisms outside the traditional court system to resolve disputes, offering quicker, cost-effective, and less adversarial solutions. ADR methods include:
Mediation
Conciliation
Negotiation
Arbitration
Lok Adalat
While ADR is commonly associated with civil disputes, it has found a significant role in criminal law, primarily in compoundable offences and certain cases involving restorative justice principles.
ADR in Criminal Law: Scope and Limitations
Only compoundable offences (as per Section 320 CrPC) can generally be resolved through ADR.
ADR in criminal law emphasizes reconciliation between victim and offender.
Some jurisdictions also promote Victim-Offender Mediation to restore harmony.
Serious offences involving public interest or non-compoundable offences cannot be resolved via ADR.
ADR helps reduce the burden on courts and offers quicker justice.
Detailed Explanation with Case Laws
1. Balkrishna Ramchandra Narwade v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
Facts:
The case involved a compoundable offence of criminal trespass.
The parties opted for ADR through Lok Adalat and reached a compromise.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that ADR mechanisms are encouraged in compoundable criminal offences.
Emphasized that such dispute resolution helps decongest courts and promotes social harmony.
The award passed by Lok Adalat has the same effect as a decree.
Significance:
Recognized ADR as a valuable tool in criminal matters where disputes can be amicably settled.
2. S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1981)
Facts:
This case is seminal in highlighting the role of mediation and conciliation in resolving disputes.
Held:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of ADR and conciliatory mechanisms even in criminal cases where applicable.
Emphasized that the legal system should encourage settlement and restoration wherever possible.
Significance:
This judgment was a foundation stone in advocating ADR mechanisms to reduce litigation and enhance amicable dispute resolution.
3. Delhi Judicial Service Association v. Rajendra Gupta (2003)
Facts:
Concerned the increasing burden on courts and delay in justice delivery.
The case discussed the introduction and promotion of ADR including in criminal disputes.
Held:
Supreme Court recommended promoting ADR, including Lok Adalats, mediation, and conciliation.
Expressly encouraged ADR even in compoundable criminal offences for speedy resolution.
Significance:
Judicial endorsement to incorporate ADR in criminal law framework for minor offences.
4. Laxman Kisanrao Jalgaonkar v. Vishwanath Pandurang Kokate (2005)
Facts:
Case involved a compoundable offence.
Parties settled the matter through ADR outside court, with the consent of the complainant.
Held:
The court recognized compounding through ADR as valid and held that courts should encourage such settlements.
Confirmed that once a dispute is settled amicably, further prosecution is unwarranted.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that ADR mechanisms should be promoted for minor criminal disputes.
5. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
Facts:
Though primarily about electoral reforms, this case touched upon the importance of transparency and mediation.
Held:
The Supreme Court stressed that ADR mechanisms should be institutionalized and promoted.
Indirectly supported the use of ADR for speeding justice including criminal cases.
Significance:
Strengthened the legal policy backing ADR across various branches of law including criminal law.
Summary Table of Key Points
| Case | Key Holding | Impact on ADR in Criminal Law |
|---|---|---|
| Balkrishna Ramchandra Narwade | Encouragement of ADR in compoundable offences | Promoted Lok Adalat and settlement |
| S.L. Kapoor | Importance of mediation and conciliation | Foundation for ADR in criminal law |
| Delhi Judicial Service Association | Recommended ADR to reduce court burden | Endorsed ADR in criminal dispute resolution |
| Laxman Kisanrao Jalgaonkar | Courts should encourage ADR-based compounding | Affirmed compounding through ADR |
| Union of India v. ADR | Promotion of ADR for speedy justice and transparency | Supported institutionalization of ADR mechanisms |
Conclusion
ADR is a powerful tool in criminal law for compoundable offences, helping reduce case backlog and ensuring quicker, amicable justice.
Courts have encouraged the use of Lok Adalats, mediation, and conciliation.
The principle of voluntary compromise and restorative justice is at the heart of ADR in criminal law.
However, ADR is not applicable in serious, non-compoundable offences.
Case laws highlight the judiciary’s support for ADR while safeguarding fairness and consent.
RELATED Blog
0 comments