Despite the recognition of the principle of separating criminal proceedings from civil proceedings in the Iranian legal system, the legislature has granted criminal courts the authority, under certain specific and exceptional circumstances, to adjudicate the private aspect of crimes without the submission of a civil petition or adherence to the formalities of civil procedure. While examining the public claim arising from a crime, the criminal court may, in such cases, also resolve related private claims. The prevailing doctrine and jurisprudence hold that this competence is primarily recognized in crimes such as fraud, embezzlement, theft, and unlawful possession, since in the pertinent statutory provisions, the court is explicitly required to determine the private consequences. Through a descriptive-analytical method, this article examines the relevant provisions within current Iranian legislation and finds that the legislator employs diverse expressions for referring to the private claims associated with a crime, both in terms of the manner in which the court should proceed and the substantive content of its ruling. Where legal doctrine overlooks such distinctions, it cannot be considered an accurate reflection of legislative intent. The correct interpretation is that a criminal court is permitted and obliged to adjudicate the private aspect of a crime without filing a petition only when, according to the statutory provision: (1) the expression relating to the manner of the court’s performance is framed as a mandatory duty, and (2) the expression concerning the subject matter of adjudication pertains to the restitution of specific property, restoration of the prior situation, or the awarding of clearly ascertainable damages.