A crime is a wrong done to a society. However, the aim of a state is to have a minimum rate of litigation which is based upon the Latin maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”. The legislation provides the criminal justice system with an effective tool for compounding offence which, when used, may decrease the time it takes to resolve a case. However, where the offences are of a private nature and not serious, the code or Sanhita considers it expedient to recognize some of them a compoundable offence [S.320(1) of IPC or S.359(1) of BNSS] and some offences that may be compounded with the permission of the Court [320(2) of IPC or S.359(2) of BNSS].
The rationale behind compounding offences lies in reducing the burden on the judicial system and promoting reconciliation between the parties involved. It acknowledges that not all criminal acts warrant rigorous legal proceedings, especially when both parties are willing to come to a resolution. However, compounding is not available for all types of offences; serious crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, are generally excluded from this process due to their gravity and the interests of public justice.
The procedure for compounding can vary by jurisdiction, often requiring court approval to ensure that the agreement is voluntary and not coerced. Ultimately, compounding serves as a pragmatic approach to justice, prioritizing resolution and rehabilitation over punishment in appropriate circumstances.
In conclusion, compounding of offences is a complex issue in Indian criminal law. While it can be a useful tool in certain cases, it’s subject to various restrictions and considerations to ensure that justice is served and the rights of all parties are protected.
Meaning of compounding of offences
Compounding in the context of criminal law means forbearance from the prosecution as a result of an amicable settlement between the parties. As observed by Calcutta High Court in a vintage decision in Murray[1], compounding of an offence signifies “that the person against whom the offence has been committed has received some gratification, not necessarily of a pecuniary character, to act as an inducement of his desiring to abstain from a prosecution”.
The victim is prepared to condone the offensive conduct of the accused who became chastened and repentant. Criminal law needs to be attuned to take note of such situations and provide a remedy to terminate criminal proceedings with respect to certain types of offences. The interest of victims of crimes and the societal interest in the conviction of the offender often clash and this makes the job of law-makers more complex.
Thus, the Courts are flooded with cases and, therefore, more offences should be identified for compoundability which is only a secondary consideration. Primarily, the nature, magnitude and consequences of the crime have to be taken into account [2]
Non-compoundable offences
Non-compoundable offences cannot be settled amicably but instead, there is a full trial. These offences are more grave and serious, having an impact on society as a whole rather than just the victim. The prohibition against compounding such offences stems from the concern that doing so would encourage significant offences to be tolerated in society. Since the offences that are not listed in Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code are regarded as non-compoundable offences, the list of offences under this is not exhaustive. Example: Dishonest misappropriation, kidnapping or abduction with intent to kill, etc.
In these kinds of offences, the complainant engaging in a compromise does not arise because the ‘State’, or the police has brought the case. A non-compoundable offence has an impact on both the private party and society. Such an offence cannot be compounded, and the court lacks the authority to do so. Ultimately the accused undergoes trial, is either acquitted or convicted based on the evidence placed on record.
Compounding of offences
Section 320 of CrPC: Compounding of offences. –
(1)The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table.
(2)The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table.
(3)When an offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence when such attempt is itself an offence or where the accused is liable under section 34 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code may be compounded in like manner.
(4) (a) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf, may, with the permission of the Court compound such offence.
(b) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of such person may, with the consent of the Court compound such offence.
(5) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.
(6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section.
(7) No offence shall be compounded if the accused is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable either to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind for such offence.
(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.
Similarly, S.359 of BNSS lays down the provision for compounding of offences dealt under the BNS, 2023.
Legal framework in India
The 19th Law Commission of India gave some recommendations to the government to amend the provisions relating to the same. Hence, the CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2009 was brought in and the Tables of Section 320 (1) and (2) underwent certain changes. In order to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 154th Report as well as 177th Report, a number of offences in the second Table (falling under sub-section (2) of Section 320) were transferred to the first Table. Section 312 IPC (causing miscarriage) was included in the Table under Section 320(2).
Further, the value of property stolen etc. as specified in relation to Sections 379, 381, 406, 407, 408, 411 has 12 been omitted, and Section 354 IPC was deleted from the list of compoundable offences. Thus, after the CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2009 which came into effect on 31st December, 2009, the number of compoundable offences in CrPC, 1973 are 56 i.e. 43 in the Table under Section 320 (1) and 13 in the Table under Section 320 (2).
It also recommended to enlarge the scope of s.320 (2) by including the accused constructively liable under S.34 and 149 of IPC which was subsequently added by amending the provision[3]. There are also other various statutes which allow the compounding and other criminal laws do not explicitly sanction compounding for all offences, there are instances where it is permitted or implied
Applicability of compounding
There are a certain number of cases where the compounding may be done but there are some prerequisites.
- Consent of the Victim: In certain offences, particularly those involving personal injury or property damage, compounding is allowed if the victim consents to it. This is often seen in cases of simple hurt, theft, or criminal trespass.
- Specific Provisions: Some laws, like the Indian Penal Code, have specific provisions that permit compounding under certain circumstances. For example, in cases of simple theft or minor assault, the victim may agree to withdraw their complaint against the accused in exchange for a monetary settlement or other agreed-upon terms. However, compounding would not be allowed for a serious offence such as murder.
Non- applicability of compounding
In certain cases, compounding is not allowed for all types of offences.
- Non-Compoundable Offences: Certain offences, particularly those considered serious or against public order, cannot be compounded. These often include offences like murder, rape, and theft.
- Compoundable Offences with Court Permission: For some offences, compounding is allowed only with the express permission of the court. This is often the case for offences that involve a significant public interest.
Advantages
- Speedy Resolution: Compounding can lead to a quicker resolution of cases, reducing the burden on the criminal justice system.
- Victim Satisfaction: It can provide victims with a sense of closure and compensation.
- Rehabilitation: In some cases, compounding can offer offenders an opportunity for rehabilitation.
Disadvantages
- Potential for Abuse: There is a risk of abuse, especially in cases where victims are coerced or pressured into compounding.
- Public Interest: Compounding certain offences can undermine public confidence in the justice system.
- Victims’ Rights: It may not always adequately protect the rights of victims.
Approaches of the judiciary in the compounding of offences
Surendra Nath Mohanty vs. State of Orissa[4]
It was held that, for compounding of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, a complete scheme is provided under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 provides that the offences mentioned in the table provided thereunder can be compounded by the persons mentioned in Column 3 of the said table. Further, subsection (2) provides that the offences mentioned in the table could be compounded by the victim with the permission of the Court. As against this, sub-section (9) specifically provides that “no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section”. In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, only the offences which are covered by Table 1 or 2 as stated above can be compounded and the rest of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code cannot be compounded.
Ram Pujan Vs State of U.P
The Supreme Court and other various High Courts in cases which involved offences that are not compoundable but the parties have entered into compromise, has reduced the sentence of the accused in view of the compounding made between them.
The offence is punishable under Section 326 of the Penal Code was compromised between the parties at the appellate stage. After verification of the genuineness of the compromise the High Court refused to permit compounding of the non-compoundable offence under Section 326 of the Penal Code but reduced the sentence in view of the compromise and the same was upheld by the Supreme Court.
This approach has been followed till the ruling of Y. Suresh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh[5]
where compounding of a non-compoundable offence under Section 326 of the Penal Code was allowed as a special case. However, the Supreme Court took care to term the case as a special one and directed that the case should not be treated as a precedent.
Also the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand Vs State of Rajasthan[6] a case under Section 307 of the Penal Code which is not compoundable again allowed composition by invoking Article 142 directing the trial court to accord permission to compound. This was done based on the facts and circumstances of that case.
Drawing inspiration from the above two Judgments of the Supreme Court some of the High Courts and trial Courts began to permit the composition of offence which are not compoundable. Trial courts that adopted this course were not adequately equipped to pause and determine whether these two judgments declare any law within Article 141 of the Constitution of India and many of the High Courts’ perhaps because of inadequate submissions of counsels failed to notice that in Y. Suresh Babu (Supra) the Supreme Court itself directed not to treat the case as a precedent and also failed to consider and determine whether Mahesh Chand (Supra) lays down any binding precedent.
Ramlal v. State of J&K[7]
In this case, the Apex Court has overruled the above two judgments on allowing the compounding which is not a compoundable offence as per the provisions.
It has been held that “we are unable to follow the said decision as a binding precedent Section 320 which deals with “compounding of offences” provides two Tables therein, one containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded by the person mentioned in it and the other containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded with the permission of the Court by the persons indicated therein. Only such offences included in the said two Tables can be compounded and none else as said in Sub-Section (9) of Section 320.
It is apparent that when the decision in Mahesh Chand (Supra) was rendered, the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid legal prohibition. Nor was the attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y. Suresh Babu (supra) drawn. Hence those were decisions rendered per incuriam. We hold that an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the permission of the Court cannot be compounded at all. The offence under Section 326 IPC is, admittedly, non-compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel to permit the same to be compounded”. However in this case though compounding is not allowed, the appellants have been acquitted.
Difference between the powers granted in Section 320 and Section 482:
Section 320 of the CrPC provides the list of offences that may be compounded either by the victim or by the court. Section 482 confers powers on the High Court to make any order which it deems necessary to:
- give effect to the orders under CrPC, or
- prevent abuse of the process of any court, or
- otherwise to secure ends of justice.
The difference between Section 482 and Section 320 is the power exercised under Section 320, which enlists that compoundable offences can be executed straight away, without specific permissions required. But power exercised under Section 482 to quash any criminal offences, that are not in the list of compoundable offences, shall be used cautiously with due care that is administered with proper scrutiny. The courts have a meticulous job to check on all the necessary parameters and strike a balance between which matters are of interest to be compounded or not.
B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana[8]
In this case, the issue of whether the High Court can quash the proceedings involving non-compoundable offences under s.482 of the code to achieve the purpose of s.320 has been answered.
It has been held, “We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of the power of quashing”. The Court, however, guardedly said: “It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power”. The Supreme Court has justified the exercise of power under Section 482 to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-compoundable”.
This approach has been subsequently followed in Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and Manoj Sharma vs. State, etc.
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr[9]
This case has been referred to the larger bench by the division bench of the Supreme Court to clarify the judgments passed in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and Manoj Sharma vs. State.
It was held that the High Courts shall not quash criminal cases of serious and heinous nature, or in connection with public concerns or in connection with special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity. This ruling is applicable in all criminal cases, except in the case where conviction in the criminal offence is rarely possible and longing of the case would be detrimental to the justice of the accused. The offences of a private nature arising out of family disputes or matrimony such as dowry, etc. can be settled by the power of the High Court under Section 482.
Narinder Singh & ors vs State of Punjab & Anr[10]
In this case, the apex court has laid down certain guidelines conferring powers upon High Courts to quash criminal cases of non-compoundable nature when the parties were ready for a compromise while exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC with a great amount of caution to be maintained while exercising such power.
The guidelines are as follows-
Nature of offences:
The High Court is allowed to use its powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash criminal proceedings of a non-compoundable nature if the offences involved are predominantly of a civil and commercial nature.
Serious Offences:
The High Court does not quash the offences under Section 482 of the serious and heinous nature of the CrPC which have an impact on society.
Section 307 of IPC:
This High Court can quash the offences under Section 307 that are categorised as heinous and serious offences and are against society but only when there is enough evidence to prove it on various parameters. The collected evidence shall be accompanied by the charge sheet filed or the charges framed and/or during the trial i.e. not permissible when the matter is under investigation.
Special Statues:
The criminal offences registered under various statutes or when the offences are committed by the public servant while in service shall not be quashed by the High Court based on the compromise.
Antecedent/Conduct:
The courts need to consider the antecedent or conduct of the accused while considering the compromise between the parties under Section 482 of the CrPC in case of non-compoundable criminal offences when the offence before the High Court is of private nature.
Conclusion
Compoundable offences are those in which criminal liability begins to accrue at the point of compromise, while non-compoundable offences are those in which compromise is impossible or in which criminal culpability continues even after the offender has compromised.
However, the court considers the fact of compromise when determining the sentence period. In recent days, it has been regarded as an acceptable method of concluding a legal proceeding. In all crimes that the law considers compoundable, the litigants can peacefully resolve their differences between themselves but since the crime is said to be committed against the society, the Judiciary restraints itself cautiously while exercising its power in many instances not only in compounding an offence as the impact of the crime is effected in the society.
But the legislature may come up with certain amendments as recommended by the Law Commission of India in order to reduce the burden of the Judiciary even where the cases with trivial offences are being dealt.
References
- Report No.237- Compounding of offences, Law Commission of India.
- Sri S.M. Deka, Director, North Eastern Judicial, Officers’ Training Institute-Compounding of offences under the Indian Penel Code and those under other Laws.
- https://www.lawaudience.com/the-concept-of-compounding-of-offences-under-code-of-criminal-procedure-1973/.
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/268959/
- Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
[1] (1894)21 ILR 103 at 112
[2] Law Commission of India, 237th Report on Compounding of offences (December, 2011).
[3] Law Commission of India, 237th Report on Compounding of offences (December, 2011).
[4] AIR 1999 SC 2181
[5] (1987) 2 JT (SC) 361
[6] A.I.R 1988 S.C 2111
[7] (1999) 2 SCC 213
[8] (2003) 4 SCC 675
[9] 2012 AIR SCW 5333
[10] (2012) 10 SCC 303
Author: Lokesh R, 1st Year- LL.M student at Pondicherry University, Puducherry.
