Madras High Court Refers Criminal Case to Mediation, Provides for Virtual and Hybrid Mediation

The Madras High Court has referred a criminal case to mediation while laying down a flexible procedure allowing physical, virtual and hybrid participation, including video-recorded consent where parties who reach a settlement cannot personally attend the mediation centre to sign it.

In M. Vetriselvan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr., Crl. O.P. No. 6462 of 2024, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy considered the matter appropriate for an attempt at mediation having regard to the nature of the allegations. The Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab concerning the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise and referred the case to the Mediation Sub-Centre, Sendurai, Ariyalur District.

Significantly, the Court provided flexibility in how the mediation could be conducted. While parties could participate physically wherever possible, the mediator could conduct proceedings through an online portal or WhatsApp video calls. Where parties were out of station or working elsewhere, mediation was, as far as possible, to be conducted virtually. A hybrid process, combining physical and virtual participation, was also permitted.

The Court further addressed a practical difficulty that can arise after settlement. If an agreement was reached but the parties were unable to attend the mediation centre to sign it, their consent to the quashing of the criminal complaint on the basis of compromise could be recorded through video, with the recording submitted along with the mediator's report. The Court specified this procedure for cases of this nature.

The scope of mediation was also not confined to the criminal proceeding before the High Court. The parties were permitted to discuss all issues between them, enabling the mediation to address the wider dispute underlying the criminal case. Where a connected civil suit was pending and a settlement was reached, the Mediated Settlement Agreement could be forwarded to the concerned civil court for passing a decree in its terms.

The first mediation session was fixed for 12 August 2026 at 3.30 p.m., with the mediator directed to submit a report by 14 September 2026. The criminal original petition was to be listed on 15 September 2026 after the report was received.

From a mediation perspective, the order is notable for treating process flexibility as a means of improving access to mediation. Physical attendance is not an inflexible requirement: parties who live or work elsewhere can participate remotely, while hybrid mediation allows the process to adapt to the circumstances of individual participants.

The order is also significant because it allows mediation to address the underlying dispute as a whole, rather than only the criminal proceeding formally referred to it. By permitting connected civil issues to form part of the discussions, the process potentially enables parties to reach a more comprehensive resolution, while the criminal proceedings remain subject to the High Court's power to determine whether they may ultimately be quashed on compromise.

The approach therefore illustrates how court-referred mediation can combine procedural flexibility, technology, and a whole-dispute approach in appropriate criminal matters, while leaving the legal consequence of any settlement—including quashing the criminal proceedings—to the Court.