Jail Authorities Must Facilitate Under-Trial Signatures for Compromise: Punjab & Haryana HC
Copy Link
Share
Save
Ensuring that incarceration does not impede the amicable resolution of disputes, the High Court has ruled that jail authorities are obligated to facilitate the execution of compromise deeds by under-trial prisoners. The decision underscores that being in judicial custody cannot act as an absolute bar against an accused exercising their right to enter into a lawful settlement with a complainant.
In a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, a single-judge bench of Justice Manisha Batra addressed an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Safidon, which had left the execution of a compromise deed solely to the discretion of jail authorities without explicit affirmative directives.
Key Takeaways
Facilitation of Compromises in Custody: Under-trial prisoners must be provided reasonable access to execute settlement deeds while in judicial custody.
Judicial Mandate Over Administrative Discretion: Jail superintendents cannot indefinitely delay or evade enabling lawful document execution by inmates when parties arrive at a mutual settlement.
Preservation of Statutory Rights: Access to remedy under Section 528 of BNSS ensures procedural roadblocks in lower courts do not derail genuine out-of-court settlements.
Court Directions and Rationale
Addressing the procedural hurdle faced by the petitioner, the High Court issued specific mandates to ensure the timely execution of the deed without going into the ultimate merits of the dispute.
The Court has following directions:
"the petitioner shall be permitted to sign the compromise deed on 11.09.2026. The Superintendent, District Jail, Jind, shall facilitate the signing of the compromise deed by the petitioner on the said in accordance with law."
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the aforesaid position and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the effect of the compromise on the criminal proceedings, the present petition is disposed of..."
Ratio
Where an under-trial prisoner in judicial custody seeks to execute an amicable compromise deed signed by the complainant, the court must issue affirmative directions to jail authorities to facilitate such execution in accordance with law, without prejudice to the eventual legal effect of such compromise on the criminal proceedings.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered under Sections 306, 232(1), 308(7), and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Sadar Safidon, District Jind, against the petitioner. Confined in District Jail, Jind, the petitioner negotiated an amicable settlement with the complainant during the pendency of proceedings.
Although the complainant had executed the compromise deed, the petitioner was unable to sign it due to his judicial custody. The petitioner initially moved the trial court for production warrants, but the request was refused on 17.08.2026, leaving the matter to the Superintendent of District Jail, Jind, who subsequently failed to facilitate the request. Driven to the High Court, the petitioner sought setting aside of the magistrate's order. With neither the State nor the complainant opposing the execution, the High Court disposed of the petition with direct instructions to facilitate the signing.
Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M-49136-2026 (O&M)
Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:122303
Case Title: Vikas Kumar v. State of Haryana and another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana; Mr. Yash Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 2/complainant
Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 16949
Breaking News
