This article is written by Himanshu Mahamuni, a student of Government Law College, Mumbai. This article analyzes the provisions of law and case laws that permit mutual settlement even in non-compoundable offences.
Table of Contents
Introduction
To escape from the tedious and costly process of court proceedings, parties choose to mutually settle disputes between them, outside the court. The cases can be of civil or criminal nature. However, the cases involving serious issues cannot skip the court proceedings and mutual settlement is not accepted. The settlement depends on the nature of the offence; whether it is compoundable or non-compoundable. The compoundable cases are listed under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code and matters not listed under this are non-compoundable offences. Such Offences cannot be settled mutually because mere monetary relief does not heal the suffering of the victim’s mind and body. However, courts have discretion on the issue concerning non-compoundable offences.
This article discusses what offences come under the headings of ‘compoundable’ and ‘non-compoundable, how the two are distinguished and the differences between such offences. Lastly, the mutual settlement in non-compoundable cases has been discussed in light of Supreme Court judgements.
Compoundable and non-compoundable offences
Compoundable offences
In compoundable offences, parties to the dispute may enter into a compromise or settlement where the accused person provides an amount in the form of consideration to the aggrieved person. A court may dispose of the case, as the case is settled between the parties. The compoundable offences are given in Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These offences are less serious and settled only in good faith. Compoundable offences fall into two broad categories:
- Where the permission of the court is not required
Some offences such as trespass, adultery, defamation, etc. do not require the court’s permission to be compounded.
- Where the permission of the court required
Offences of a more serious nature such as theft, assault and criminal breach of trust require the court’s permission to be settled.
Parties ready to compound shall request the application of compounding in the same court where trials were previously held for the case. The accused shall be considered acquitted if compounding of the charge takes place in the same way as the accused would have been acquitted in a trial by court.
Non-compoundable offences
The offences under non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded, but have to go through the whole trial to be quashed. These offences are of a more serious and grievous nature, which affect society as a whole and not just an individual. The reason to not allow such offences to be compounded is that it would set a bad example in society to get away with serious offences. Non-compoundable offences are against the public policy and thus settlement is not allowed by a regular court to such offences. The list of offences under this is non-exhaustive, as the offences which are not given in Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code are considered to be non-compoundable offences. Such offences usually include voluntarily causing grievous hurt, hurt by dangerous weapon, dishonest misappropriation, kidnapping or abducting to murder, etc.
Differences
| Compoundable Offences | Non-Compoundable Offences |
| Nature of these types of offences are less serious | Nature of these types of offences is more grave. |
| These offences only impact a private person’s rights. | These offences may impact a private person as well as the society at large. |
| These offences are mentioned in Section 320 of CrPC. | These offences are those which are not mentioned in Section 320 of CrPC. |
| Compromise is allowed with or without the permission of the court. | No compromise is allowed even on permission from the court. |
| Full trials are not continued on compromise | Full trials are to be held with a judgement. |
| Cases are generally filed by a private person. | Cases are generally filed by the state. |
| Example-With Permission- theft, criminal breach of trust, grievous hurt, dishonest misappropriation, etc.Without Permission- adultery, causing hurt, defamation, criminal trespass, etc. | Example- Voluntary hurt by dangerous weapons, wrongful confinement for 3 days or more, counterfeiting trade or property, etc. |
Difference between the powers granted in Section 320 and Section 482
Section 320 of the CrPC provides the list of offences that are eligible to be compounded 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;
- prevent abuse of the process of any court, or
- otherwise to secure ends of justice.
The Supreme Court asked High Courts to refrain from quashing criminal proceedings which are of heinous or serious nature, or where the interest of the public is involved, in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012). Whereas in cases when the offence is civil, where the wrong is personal, and the matter is resolved between the parties consensually, the proceedings can be quashed by HC. However, the High Court can quash criminal proceedings where the conviction is not possible and the parties are ready to settle the case amongst themselves even if the offence did not fall under compoundable offences.
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, which are not in the list of compoundable offences, shall be used cautiously with due care that is administered with proper scrutiny. The judges of 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.
Supreme Court on the compounding of non-compoundable offences
When the crime is civil, the harm done affects only the individual and thereby invites damages only on him. But when the crime is criminal, its effect is not limited to an individual, but on the society as a whole, and the offender must be punished to instil a sense of fear. This is the reason why most offences in criminal cases are non-compoundable. The criminal offences which can be compounded are only those which are of less significance to society and less serious.
The Supreme Court has been cautious to declare which cases of criminal nature are to be of compoundable nature and laid down proper guidelines to quash criminal offences by the High Court. The Supreme Court had laid down in the case of Rameshchandra J, Thakkar vs. A.P. Jhaveri (1972) that if an offender is acquitted based on compounding and it turns out that the compounding done was invalid, such acquittal can be overturned by the High Court by using its revisionary power. Furthermore, if a non-compoundable offender is acquitted on an invalid basis, such acquittal can be overturned by the High Court. Following case laws will clarify the criminal cases to be framed as compoundable.
Case Laws
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)
In the case of Gian Singh, the Supreme Court held that High Courts shall not quash the criminal cases of serious and heinous nature, or in connection with public concerns. 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 for justice of the accused. The offences of the private nature arising out of family dispute or matrimony such as dowry, etc can be settled by the power of the High court under Section 482.
Mahesh Chand v. the State of Rajasthan (1988)
In the Mahesh Chand case, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to give complete justice to the parties. This article permitted the Supreme Court to compound non-compoundable offences. This power was to be exclusively used in the case of an attempt to suicide under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to compound the offence in this case.
Ram Lal v. the State of Jammu & Kashmir (1999)
The Ram Lal case altered the judgement given in the Mahesh Chand case. The provisions given under Section 320(9), which lists out compoundable offences, cannot be ignored. The offences declared by law as non-compoundable cannot be compounded, even with the permission of the court.
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003)
In the B.S. Joshi case the Supreme court was faced with the question of whether High Courts possess the power to quash an order involving non-compoundable offences under Section 482 of the CrPC. It was held that to achieve justice to the parties of the case, the High Courts have the power to use its jurisdiction to quash a case involving Section 482, even if the case was non-compoundable.
State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat (2013)
In the case of Shambhu Kewat, the Supreme Court observed that the powers of courts to compound offences of criminal nature-related matters given under Article 320 of the CrPC. The scope of the High Court to observe material facts and form opinions shall be according to Article 482, to meet the ends of justice whose ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of the indictment. In this case, the Supreme Court cleared the source to be referred to for acquittal by compounding to the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1947)
In the case of Narinder Singh, the judgement in the Gian Singh case was reconsidered by the Supreme Court. This case conferred powers upon High Courts to quash criminal cases of non-compoundable nature when the parties were ready for a compromise while exercising their power under Section 482 of the CrPC. However, a great amount of caution was to be maintained while exercising such power. This case ultimately led to the passing of certain guidelines by the Supreme Court for quashing the criminal proceedings by the High Court of non-compoundable nature. Using the powers under Section 482 as the determinant power of the High Court for acquittal was sourced from it observed in the Shambhu Kewat case. 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 non-compoundable nature if the offences involved are predominantly of 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 Courts can quash the offence 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
Offences done against an individual of a less serious scale usually come under compoundable offences, that is the mutual settlement between them can take place easily without any permission. However, the Supreme Court has different opinions over the power of the High Court for the compounding of non-compoundable offences which is now a settled debate.
Initially, the High Court was hesitant to allow any settlement relating to non-compoundable offences between the parties. Over time the Supreme Court brought down proper guidelines in the case of Narinder Singh such as the Civil nature of the offence, its seriousness, Section 307, special statutes and antecedents or conduct of the offender. The High Court can use the power given under Section 482 to allow mutual settlement even in non-compoundable offences. Compounding of offences shall be allowed of the offences that are not too heinous and does not endanger the public life or society which may result in irreparable damage. Even if courts allow such compounding and later find out that it was based on invalid claims, courts are conferred with powers to overturn the decision.
References
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91933/
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1679850/
- https://www.mondaq.com/india/trials-appeals-compensation/793048/compounding-of-non-compoundable-offences-by-high-courts-under-Section-482-of-crpc-supreme-court-re-affirms-position
- http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2392/Compoundability-of-non-compoundable-offences.html
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
https://t.me/joinchat/L9vr7LmS9pJjYTQ9
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
