ADR in the criminal justice system

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a well-established procedure in the civil adjudication system, but it has not been widely introduced in the criminal justice system. Inadequate number of judges, absence of witnesses, etc. are making the criminal justice system more complex and causing delay in trial. As such, it is the high time to introduce ADR mechanism in the criminal justice system to avoid any kind of complexity or delay in trial.

Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 refers to the compoundable offences. Now-a-days, minor offences are compoundable by the consent of the parties. Consent of court is not necessary in compounding as offence if the parties are being agreed to do so amicably. However, compromise is not really possible in the grievous offences such as murder. Simultaneously, pity offences can be settled by compromising of the parties where the natural justice should be ensured, and the process needs to be guided by the legal activities.

ADR is now a popular option for the people at large to settle their disputes as it is time-efficient, cost-effective and allows parties to avoid procedural complexity. Compounding is possible at any stage of the trial, and in many cases, compounding is possible before pronouncing the judgment. In the case of Md. Joynal and others v Rustom Ali and others (1984) 36 DLR (AD) 240, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh highly appreciated the compromise which is the basic form of ADR. 

Indeed, to promote the ADR necessary steps should be taken by enlarging the scopes of section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Offences under section 385 of the Penal Code, 1860 are also considerable to be compromised by using the ADR mechanism and it can only be possible when necessary amendments in laws are introduced. Many lawyers and legal professionals are not well familiarised with the process of ADR. To make them aware, several training centers should be established at the earliest time possible.