The bill of Islamic punishment on the threshold of being enacted, in contrast with the current law, has formally recognized Incomplete offences except Attempt which is not an innovation, It is rather legislator return to the general punishment law of 1352 which had recognized impossible crime as equal to” Tantamount to attempt” and failed crime has implicitly placed instead of “Attempt”.This bill, through clear acceptance of not voluntarily withdrawal as a condition for Attempt, has removed ambiguity of the current law and has considered Attempt as a principle virtually in all crimes. Moreover, to follow the law of regarding Islamic punishment of 1361, whenever an action bearing the features of Attempt is identical to another criminal act, only the punishment of the special crime will be applied.This whole innovation is generally a new approach to incomplete offences. However, this bill has some limitations like being not clear acceptance of the general title of incomplete offences, failed crime interim of Attempt, non- mitigation for the people whose deeds, in addition to being an Attempt, is identical to a specific crime and has voluntarily withdrawn criminal acts.

Criminal conspiracy has been criminalized in different legal systems. Conspiracy is an Accessory Offence.Accessory Offences like Carrying of forbidden weapons or tramping are behaviors that don’t contain immediate and direct harm. But they show the dangerous mood in the preprators and increase the probability of committing serious crimes in the future. These reasons justify the criminalization of accessory offences in order to prevention of crimes in future and providing the social defence.But creating the wide spread of accessory offences, limits the human liberties unduly and causes criminal inflation. also negative effects of criminal inflation is not hidden for anybody. Therefore legislator should criminalized conspiracy for committing serious crimes. Unfortunately the Iran’s legislator has ignored this note and criminlised the conspiracy for commiting the all crimes against properties, reputation and bodies. Also some of these conspiracies contain more severe punishment than the main crimes that encourages the conspirators to commit the main crimes.Then reviewing the legislative and judicial policy in Iran’s criminal law due to limiting the domain of criminalization in section 611 of Iran’s Islamic penal code is necessary and unavoidable.Elements of Criminal Conspiracy in section 611 of Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, differences and similarities between Conspiracy and attempt ,abbeting, repeating of Conspiracy, Conditional Agreement in Conspiracy, Attemting of Conspiracy, all of them have ambiguities that need complete analysis.

A summary or non-indictable process in the UK legal system has been adopted to speed up the criminal procedure of petty offences in magistrate courts. In this type of proceeding, which involves close to 95% of the proceedings procedures, such as the jury, are removed and the process is handled by lay mans without salary. All of these crimes are handled by the magistrate court. In United Kingdom, non-indictable process include summary offenses and either way offences in the context of proceedings by magistrate court. These crimes are petty crimes and sever crimes are handled by the jury in crown court. There are some examples of no-indictable in Iran's law. These include seventh-degree and eighth-degree offenses, chastity offenses, juvenile offenses, prosecution by the court, offenses committed by the president, some crimes committed by clerics, paying diyah in specific cases, handling certain crimes within the jurisdiction of the district court, Dispute Resolution Council and Government Organization.

Some social levels such as women are more vulnerable than the other groups because of their social and environmental characters, and most of the criminals choose their victims from this group since they are easily caught. The higher and heavier punishment, the less commitment in such crimes and as a result the less women harassment. Therefore, setting up a proper punishment system and double the fines seem inevitable and necessary.But it seems that not a suitable legislation has come into existence in Iran to protect the women rights and even with less effectiveness, It has provided a held that women are at the center of the crisis and suffer a great number of offences.

Pathology of illegal possession offence shows that there are some challenges. serious different opinions about whether this crime is conditional on the element of ownership or possession of the victim; Ambiguity in the existence of the element of property belonging to another despite the common ownership of the perpetrator; Illegal element presence or absence in the conduct arising from the contract or the execution of right; Disproportionate and vague legal penalties, uncertainty in the implementation of lapse of time are most important shortcomings. Purpose of the research with Collecting and studying data from library sources and judicial decisions and descriptive-analytical method is presenting ideas and reasonable measures based on the balanced protection of private property and public order. The research findings prove that this crime can be committed with elements of ownership or previous possession and with illegal possession of common property by each partner. Presence of illegal element in possession arising from the contract or the execution of right; Necessity to enact proportionate and several punishments are other research findings.

The book of Tazir -Punishment for crime not measuring up to the strict requirements of hadd punishments- of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran has not distinguished the crime of the abstract forgery from the concrete forgery. The criminal legislator has considered the same punishment for both offences and in some cases to resolve this problem he has made different legal articles that it causes recognition of certain instances of abstract forgery crime be impossible. There is disagreement between Jurists about the definition of the abstract forgery. They regard two elements in most definitions: altering or fabricating the actuality of a document or writing and the safety of a document apparently. But they should not be found as exclusive specifications for the abstract forgery because these provisions can be occurred in the concrete forgery. The following research tries to study the criteria to distinguish the abstract forgery from the concrete one in the penal code of Iran, Egypt and France in detail. Therefore, it criticizes and evaluates the jurists’ opinions in this field based on the difference in the position of the Perpetrator of the abstract forgery and concrete forgery.

Impossible crime is an inchoate offence which the occurrence of result is impossible because of absence of matter or absence of necessary legal conditions or using inadequate equipment and results to non-existence of target crime. Occurrence of impossible crime shows mens rea of perpetrators of it and these perpetrators does not have less criminal mind than the people who commit the complete crime. Although, the original crime doesn't happen, it's obvious that the perpetrators haven't obeyed the law. Impossible crime is a crime which has been considered in Iran Law and has amounted to different decisions. Criminal Code 1370 provoked the conflict and most of jurists believe that the Law doesn't mention the impossible crime. But the criminal Law 1392 under the title of attempt finishes the conflicts. Although, this is not considered as an invention this statute because the mentioned Article, with little difference, is a comeback to Criminal Law 1352. Entrance to execution operations and impossibility of target crime are actus reus of the impossible crime. Contrary to the most of jurists view, in this crime there is no need to finish the executive operations and it can be stopped in the half way. In accordance to Iran Law, and not in England Law, the impossible crime in crimes which there actus reus is an omission can be occurred. Moreover, essential of occurrence of an impossible crime is existence of intention. About punishing or not punishing the perpetrator of an impossible crime different views are taken.However, the mention countries Law believe in punishing the perpetrator of an impossible crime. It is necessary to be considered that the punishment should be diminished to complete crime, and due to this in Iran Law an impossible crime is tantamount to an attempt and it is punishment is less than a complete crime. English Law also considered the impossible crime as an attempt but the punishments are the same. However, in all two countries Law it is necessary that the attempt be punishable in order to punish the impossible crime.

The commencement of a crime is a situation in which the offender, despite the decision to commit a criminal act preparation and entering the implementation stage, for some reason, it is beyond his control, does not reach the desired result. Of course, this accidental factor has nothing to do with the evil intention of the offender and maybe if he did not encounter an obstacle, he would achieve his goal. So there is no doubt that the crime starter - however less than the complete crime agent- is punishable and deserves to be blamed. Article 122 of the Islamic penal code also follows this idea and considering the circumstances, knows that the starter of crime is punishable. But given the dominant circumstances of Had crimes, it seems that the determination of punishment in paragraphs A, B and C of the  mentioned law, and where it is related to the Hads, is insufficient and imperfect. These bugs show up more when most Had crimes in the early stages (committing a crime) not having yet the title of Had and basically, they are punishable behavior, So like the before (For example, Article 613 of the IPC on the commission of attempt the murder or 655 of the IPC on some types of starting theft…) it may be better that just crimes that the starting of them is imagable, to be criminalized below the relevant legal provisions and appropriate punishment for them to be considered.