Chapter XXIA
Section 265C CrPC: Guidelines for mutually satisfactory disposition
New Law Update (2024)
Section 291C BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate or Sessions Court
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) In a case instituted on a police report, the Court shall issue notice to the Public Prosecutor, the police officer who has investigated the case, the accused, and the victim of the case to participate in the meeting to work out a satisfactory disposition of the case: Provided that throughout such process of working out a satisfactory disposition of the case, it shall be the duty of the Court to ensure that the entire process is completed voluntarily by the parties participating in the meeting: Provided further that the accused may, if he so desires, participate in such meeting with his pleader, if any, engaged in the case.
(2) In a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Court shall issue notice to the accused and the victim of the case to participate in a meeting to work out a satisfactory disposition of the case: Provided that it shall be the duty of the Court to ensure, throughout such process of working out a satisfactory disposition of the case, that it is completed voluntarily by the parties participating in the meeting: Provided further that if the victim of the case or the accused, as the case may be, so desires, he may participate in such meeting with his pleader engaged in the case.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 265C(1)
This sub-section outlines the procedure for initiating a mutually satisfactory disposition when a case originates from a police report. It mandates the Court to involve the Public Prosecutor, the investigating officer, the accused, and the victim in a meeting, with a primary duty to ensure the entire process is entirely voluntary, and allows the accused to be present with their lawyer.
Section 265C(2)
This sub-section deals with cases not instituted on a police report, requiring the Court to issue notice to the accused and the victim to participate in a meeting for a satisfactory disposition. It mirrors the voluntariness requirement of sub-section (1), placing a duty on the Court to ensure the process is voluntary and allowing both the accused and the victim to attend with their legal counsel.
Landmark Judgements
State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor (2005):
The Supreme Court elucidated the scope and intent of plea bargaining provisions, stressing that it is not applicable to serious offences and requires strict adherence to voluntariness. The Court underscored that plea bargaining aims to provide a mutually satisfactory disposition for certain categories of cases, while ensuring justice is not compromised.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Subramaniam (2005):
This judgment further clarified that the plea bargaining scheme, including the process for mutually satisfactory disposition, must be applied judiciously. The Supreme Court emphasized that these provisions should not be invoked in cases involving public interest or grave offences, reinforcing the necessity for courts to ensure that the process is entirely voluntary, fair, and not subject to coercion or undue influence.