Question 2 (b)

Agreement to drop a prosecution: recovery of stolen items

6 marks

Time to write: About 12 minutes
Topic: Legality of object and void agreements
Notes: Crux notes

Question

Question 2 (b) · 6 marks

Pranav promises the thief that he will drop the prosecution for theft against him, and in return the thief promises to hand back all the stolen items. But once Pranav has dropped the charges, the thief refuses to return the items. Will Pranav be able to recover the stolen items? Comment, explaining properly the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, of 1872.

Reworded from the university paper; the task is the same. The original paper belongs to the University of Delhi. See DU's question bank.

Before you write

Read off the question and its marks

12 minfor 6 marks

Read from the question

Will Pranav be…?A case problem: state the rule and its section, apply it to these facts, then answer in one line (yes or no, and why).

Write it in this order

Read the facts; underline who did what, and the exact question 1 min
1 Section 23 and the rule against stifling prosecution 3 marks 5 min
2 Application to the facts 2 marks 4 min
3 Decision 1 mark 1 min
Check: section named, answer stated in one line 1 min

123

Short on time? Trim steps 1 and 2 evenly rather than skip one: each is capped at its own marks. End with step 3 in a line or two.

Try it first. About 12 minutes for 6 marks. Write it out, then open the solution.

Solution

Hover or tap a marked figure, like 72,000, to see how it is made and where else it appears.

Law. Under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void”. An agreement to stifle a prosecution, that is, to stop criminal proceedings already instituted from running their normal course, is a perversion or abuse of justice and is void: one should not make a trade of a felony. A compromise of an offence that the law allows to be compounded (with the court's permission where that is required) is not stifling and is lawful. Illustration (h) to section 23 is on these facts: A promises B to drop a prosecution “he has instituted against B for robbery, and B promises to restore the value of the things taken; the agreement is void, as its object is unlawful”.

Application. Pranav's promise to drop the prosecution for theft, given in return for the thief's promise to hand back the stolen items, is a private bargain to stop a prosecution already begun. The question does not say that the offence was compounded in the manner the law allows; on the facts given, the bargain is like illustration (h): an agreement to stifle a prosecution, whose object is unlawful, so it is void and neither party can enforce it. If the offence were one the law allows to be compounded, and it was compounded in that manner (with the court's permission where that is required), the settlement would be valid instead.

Decision. Pranav cannot sue the thief on this agreement to recover the stolen items. The agreement gives him no contractual right. (Any remedy he has must come from the general law, independent of this void agreement.)

Where the 6 marks sit

#	Component	Marks
1	Section 23 and the rule against stifling prosecution	3
2	Application to the facts	2
3	Decision	1
	Total	6

Keyboard: ← → previous and next question, / search

Report a problemopens an email to admin@getkunji.com with the question ID7503-Q2balready filled in.