Compromise in Criminal Cases and Its Effect – A Legal Perspective from Pakistani Courts

When we think of justice in criminal cases, we often picture a courtroom, a judge, and a verdict that either punishes or acquits the accused. But the truth is, not every criminal case ends with a long trial or a harsh sentence. Sometimes, justice takes a different route—through compromise.

In Pakistan, the concept of compromise in criminal law plays a significant role, especially in cases involving compoundable offences. But what exactly does it mean to compromise in a criminal case? And what happens when parties try to settle even in non-compoundable offences? Let’s unpack this with real judgments and examples from our courts.

What Are Compoundable Offences?

In simple terms, compoundable offences are those where the law allows the victim or their legal heirs to forgive the accused—often with the court's permission. This usually happens in offences that affect individuals directly, like bodily harm or even murder under certain provisions, where the victim’s family may forgive in the name of Almighty Allah.

Take for example the case of Shabbir Ahmed v. The State (NLR 1992 CrLJ 320), where the Lahore High Court accepted a compromise between the convict and the complainant during an appeal in a murder case and acquitted the accused.

Similarly, in Muhammad Anar v. The State (1995 MLD 1503), the legal heirs of the deceased voluntarily forgave the accused without any monetary compensation, which the court respected and allowed the compromise.

In another remarkable case, Ibrahim v. The State (1995 SCMR 1296), the Supreme Court observed that since all legal requirements for a lawful compromise were fulfilled—and considering the family ties between the parties—the compromise was accepted, and the accused were set free.

And What About Non-Compoundable Offences?

Now here’s where things get complicated.

Non-compoundable offences are considered graver and affect society at large, like terrorism, kidnapping for ransom, and gang dacoity. These cannot be forgiven by private parties, even if they try to settle out of court. The idea is simple: you can't trade away justice when the crime harms the public at large.

In Hazrat Khan v. The State (2008 MLD 991), although the parties reached a compromise, the offences (theft, arms possession, and gang activity) were non-compoundable. But since the punishment did not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC, the court granted bail—not based on the compromise but on legal grounds.

In contrast, Saeed Ahmad v. The State (PLD 2003 SC 389) shows the limits of compromise. The legal heirs forgave the accused in a murder and kidnapping case. While Section 302 (murder) was compoundable, Section 365-A (kidnapping for ransom) was not. The evidence of kidnapping was strong, and since kidnapping for ransom poses a serious threat to society, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence despite the forgiveness offered in the murder charge.

When Courts Consider Compromise in Non-Compoundable Offences

Even though the law doesn’t allow compounding in non-compoundable cases, our courts have shown a human side.

In Nazir Ahmad v. The State (2007 PCrLJ 185), the court didn’t set aside the conviction in a non-compoundable offence under Sections 396 and 460 PPC but did reduce the sentence, acknowledging the family's forgiveness and the time already served.

Similarly, in Hafiz Muhammad Aslam v. The State (2006 MLD 1288), the court upheld the conviction under Section 377 PPC (unnatural offence) but reduced the sentence from a harsher term to just two years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Why Compromise Matters—and When It Doesn’t

Compromise brings a human element to criminal law. It can heal wounds, rebuild relationships, and sometimes, save someone from lifelong imprisonment. Islamic principles also value forgiveness and allow victims’ families to pardon offenders in the name of Allah.

However, the courts draw a line when the crime involves society’s safety, like terrorism, rape, or dacoity. In such cases, even the most heartfelt forgiveness cannot replace the need for deterrence and justice.

Cases like Malik Jahangir Ahmad v. Special Court (PLD 2005 Lahore 328) clarify that compromise cannot override public policy or legislative intent. When the offence is against the state or society, the court’s hands are tied.

Final Thoughts

Compromise in criminal law walks a tightrope between justice and mercy. Our courts have shown time and again that they are willing to accept compromise in the interest of peace, provided it aligns with the law. But when the stakes are high, and public safety is involved, the law speaks louder than private settlement.

Pakistan’s legal framework, rooted in both Islamic principles and procedural fairness, provides a thoughtful balance—but it always reminds us: justice must serve not just the individual, but the society too.