. Stifling prosecutions are contrary to public order according to the principle that no one should traffic in offences. However, the same principle does not apply to civil litigation. It has even been found that agreements made to use corrupt influence in obtaining government jobs, titles or honors are illegal and therefore unenforceable. Indeed, if such agreements are valid, corruption will increase and lead to inefficiency in the civil service. . The agreement was valid and enforceable; whereas the withdrawal of the complaint was only incidental; that there were no stifling prosecutions. It is in an avowed position as a criminal complaint. unenforceable, given that stifling prosecution and consideration were illegal, cannot be tolerated.17. Needless to say, public order is neither rigid nor static.
It is true that in the times of. valid and enforceable by law; That the ex. A.13 was born to stifle the prosecution already initiated by the complainant against the defendant; To remove the criminal in question. For example, A had committed a burglary and B had therefore charged A. The charge against A cannot be dismissed because of his restoration of the stolen property. An illegal agreement under the Common Law of Contract is an agreement that the court will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal purpose. The unlawful aim must arise from the performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a murder contract. It should be noted here that although an agreement to obtain marriage is not valid, the marriage will be a valid marriage. .
This was the asphyxiation of a prosecution against the first accused, and therefore illegally under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Both courts ruled against it. It is illegal. Suffocating prosecutions are a recognized leader of public order. The law is clearly defined by the Justice Commission to Kamini Kumar Basu v. Birendranath. to stifle prosecution for that. There is no doubt that in this case the offence was of a public nature. In a case where a trademark has been infringed, it will. Similarly, an agreement to pay money to the parent/guardian of a minor in return for his or her consent to give minors marriage is void, as it is contrary to public order. The Privy Council in Raja Venkata Subhadrayamma Guru v.
Sree Pusapathi Venkapathi Raju[vi] decided that the court can only refuse the application of such agreements if the court sees that it is not made with a Bonafide object or that the reward appears to be blackmail and that Champerty and alimony in India are not illegal. By law, any agreement that prevents a person from carrying on any profession, trade or legal activity of any kind is void to that extent. Under this heading, two types of agreements are dealt with….