The Author, Md. Imran Wahab, IPS, is the Inspector General of Police in West Bengal.

Mediation, a core component of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), is traditionally associated with civil and family law matters. However, its application is increasingly being explored within the criminal justice system, particularly for non-violent and compoundable offenses. This form of criminal mediation emphasizes restorative justice, aiming to mend harm through dialogue, understanding, and mutual agreement, rather than solely focusing on punishment. As legal systems worldwide grapple with court backlogs and victim dissatisfaction, criminal mediation offers a promising, human-centric alternative.

Concept and Objectives of Criminal Mediation:

Criminal mediation facilitates a structured meeting between the victim and the offender, overseen by a neutral third party (the mediator). This process serves several key objectives:

• To acknowledge the harm caused and its emotional, social, and material repercussions.
• To provide victims with a platform to express their grievances and needs.
• To enable offenders to accept responsibility for their actions.
• To facilitate a mutually agreeable resolution, which may include restitution, an apology, or community service.

Beyond merely upholding legal rights, this process prioritizes healing, accountability, and social harmony, effectively addressing some limitations inherent in adversarial legal proceedings.

Legal Framework in India:

The legal framework for the ‘compounding of offences’ in India, which allows for the settlement of certain criminal charges by mutual agreement, is derived from the principles of the erstwhile Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These principles, which apply to minor crimes and require court approval, are now integrated into the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This mechanism offers an amicable path to dispute resolution, reduces the judicial workload, and provides victims a direct voice in their case’s outcome.

The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently affirmed the validity of mediation in criminal cases, particularly for compoundable offenses and disputes of a private, commercial, or matrimonial nature where public interest is not compromised. In practice, the Supreme Court often refers matters to its Mediation and Conciliation Centre, sometimes with conditions like a deposit to ensure the petitioner’s genuine intent. The Court has emphasized restorative justice and judicial efficiency, noting that successful mediation can lead to the quashing of proceedings.

This act of quashing is distinct from formally compounding an offense; it is a separate judicial power that serves to rectify an abuse of process or deliver justice. High Courts invoke this inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), while the Supreme Court utilizes Article 142 of the Constitution. This discretion is limited, however, as egregious crimes such as murder, rape, or offenses with widespread societal impact cannot be quashed, irrespective of any private settlement.

The foundation for these judicial practices lies in landmark rulings such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which provide crucial guidelines and empower courts to facilitate amicable settlements.

Types of Criminal Cases Suitable for Mediation:

Challenges and Concerns:

Despite its potential, criminal mediation faces several challenges:

• Power imbalances can compromise fairness, especially when vulnerable victims – such as those in domestic violence cases – feel coerced or intimidated into participating in or accepting mediation outcomes.
• Voluntariness may be undermined, as parties could be indirectly pressured into settling, defeating the core principle that mediation must be a free and willing process.
• The absence of a comprehensive legal framework for criminal mediation in India creates procedural ambiguity and inconsistencies in application across jurisdictions.
• The conflict between public and private interests raises concerns, as crimes are considered offenses against the State, and resolving them privately could dilute public accountability.
• Enforceability of mediated agreements remains uncertain, due to the lack of statutory recognition or enforcement mechanisms, which can make compliance difficult to monitor or ensure.
• Victim protection and oversight during and after mediation are critical, as ensuring emotional safety, counselling support, and protection from retaliation is essential for sustainable outcomes.

Comparative International Perspectives:

Several countries have integrated criminal mediation into their justice systems:

• United States: Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM) is widely used, particularly for juvenile offenses and first-time adult offenders. Programs like Minnesota’s Restorative Justice Initiative emphasize community involvement, focusing on dialogue, restitution, and behavioural reform.
• Canada: Section 717 of the Criminal Code provides for Alternative Measures Programs, primarily targeting young or first-time offenders. Restorative circles and community justice programs form the cornerstone of criminal mediation efforts.
• New Zealand: The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act (1989) mandates Family Group Conferences for juveniles before prosecution. This model is globally recognized for its success in restorative juvenile justice.
• European Union: Directive 2012/29/EU safeguards victims’ rights and encourages mediation where it is safe and consensual. Countries like Germany (Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich) integrate mediation into formal proceedings, often linking successful mediation with sentence reductions.
• Netherlands: Mediation is extensively employed, even for serious criminal offenses, with the goals of reducing reoffending rates and enhancing victim satisfaction.
• United Kingdom: Police and probation services utilize various restorative practices, including community resolution and conditional cautions.

Case Law Highlights:

Benefits of Criminal Mediation:

Criminal mediation offers numerous advantages:

• Victim Empowerment: It gives victims a direct and active voice in the justice process.
• Offender Accountability: It encourages offenders to reflect on their actions, accept responsibility, and fosters rehabilitation.
• Restorative Justice: It aims to repair social relationships and promote healing for all parties involved.
• Efficiency and Cost Savings: It reduces court delays, lightens caseloads, and lowers litigation expenses.
• Customized Outcomes: It allows for creative and flexible settlements tailored to the specific needs of the parties.
• Community Engagement: It strengthens social cohesion and enhances local dispute resolution capabilities.

Recommendations and Way Forward:

To fully realize the potential of criminal mediation in India, the following steps are crucial:

• Legislative reform should be undertaken to enact a dedicated statute for criminal mediation, clearly defining its scope, procedure, and safeguards.
• Comprehensive training programs must be provided to judges, police personnel, and mediators to build awareness and competence in identifying and handling suitable cases.
• Robust safeguards for victims should be implemented to ensure mediation is completely voluntary, supported by protective measures and professional counselling services.
• Judicial oversight mechanisms must be strengthened so that courts can verify the fairness, voluntariness, and legality of all mediated settlements before approval.
• A monitoring framework should be established to track compliance with mediated agreements and to assess their long-term effectiveness and impact.

Conclusion:

Mediation in criminal cases represents a significant shift from a purely punitive approach to one centered on restorative justice. While it cannot replace formal prosecution for grave crimes, it offers a viable and empathetic alternative for interpersonal, non-violent disputes. India’s legal system has made notable judicial strides in this direction. However, achieving full institutionalization of criminal mediation requires legislative clarity, increased public awareness, and robust systemic support. Drawing lessons from international models, India’s success will depend on careful contextual adaptation and cultural acceptance. Ultimately, justice extends beyond punishing wrongdoing; it encompasses healing, understanding, and rebuilding lives.

Footnotes:

1. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
2. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466.
3. Dayawati v. Yogesh Kumar Gosain, CRL. REV. P. 704/2016, SCC OnLine Del 11102 (Del. HC 2017).
4. Yashpal Chaudhrani v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8174.
5. K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226.
6. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24.
7. Criminal Appeal No. 15447 of 2025, [2025] INSC 869 (SC), decided on July 14, 2025.
8. Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 320 (India).
9. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, § 528 (India).
10. Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2012 O.J. (L 315) 57.
11. Canadian Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 717 (Can.).
12. Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (N.Z.).
13. Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Annual Reports and Resources on Court-Connected Mediation (n.d.), available at https://delhihighcourt.nic.in.