{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018628912071535022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.305164319248826, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Advancing of Restorative Justice in Criminal Law in India and Germany: A Comparative Study

The need for alternative dispute resolution and its importance is not a new discovery. Various kinds of informal agreements existed throughout the world when Alternative Dispute Resolution was not legally recognized as such. It first, however, was employed only in civil cases, and criminal justice system was exempted from it. The state undertook the responsibility to impose sanctions (which is very much the case even now) in criminal matters and the idea of informal settlement in these cases arrived much later globally. This article seeks to put some light on two systems, that is, India’s accusatorial system and Germany’s inquisitorial system of trial, and how both the countries have gradually come up with alternative dispute resolution techniques, with the primary focus being the victim–offender mediation programmes (VOMPs) and plea bargaining. The article shall give an overview of the guiding principle behind these programmes, that is, restorative justice and further trace the historical development and the present situation in both the countries. This is a comparative analysis which shall put forth the best out of both and give suggestions to improve the existing situation, while taking learning lessons from both the countries.