Compounding Of Offences In Criminal Law
✅ What is Compounding of Offences?
Compounding of offences means settling a criminal case privately between the complainant (victim) and the accused, with or without the permission of the court, depending on the nature of the offence. Once compounded, the case is considered closed, and no further legal proceedings continue.
It is governed by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
✅ Legal Framework: Section 320 CrPC
Section 320 divides offences into two categories:
Offences compoundable without permission of the court – mentioned in Section 320(1)
Offences compoundable with the permission of the court – mentioned in Section 320(2)
👉 Non-compoundable offences cannot be settled and must be tried and decided by the court.
✅ Purpose of Compounding
To reduce the burden on courts
Promote reconciliation between parties (especially in private or personal wrongs)
Speedy justice and dispute resolution
🔍 Detailed Case Law Analysis (5+ cases)
1. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
Facts:
The accused was charged under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), a non-compoundable offence. Parties reached a compromise and sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Held:
Supreme Court held that even non-compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if the offence is personal in nature and settlement would lead to peace and justice.
However, offences with serious societal impact like rape, murder, terrorism, etc., cannot be quashed even if parties settle.
Importance:
This case laid the foundation for compromise in non-compoundable offences under special circumstances, using inherent powers of the High Court.
2. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466
Facts:
A case under Sections 307, 324, 323, 341 IPC was settled between parties. The High Court refused to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC.
Held:
Supreme Court clarified principles to be followed for quashing criminal proceedings based on compromise:
Nature and gravity of the offence
Whether it’s a private or societal wrong
Stage of proceedings
Parties’ willingness
Reiterated that in heinous crimes, compromise is not permissible.
Importance:
This case provides a checklist for courts on when to permit quashing on compromise, even if the offence is non-compoundable.
3. B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675
Facts:
Husband and wife settled a Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives) case after marriage disputes were resolved.
Held:
Supreme Court permitted quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC, even though Section 498A was non-compoundable.
Held that if the continuation of the criminal case would defeat the purpose of the settlement, the High Court can quash proceedings.
Importance:
Significant in matrimonial disputes, allowing settlement-based closure to avoid further bitterness.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149
Facts:
The accused was charged under Section 307 IPC. Parties sought compounding of the offence.
Held:
Supreme Court held that Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) is a serious offence, hence not compoundable.
It cannot be settled privately, even if the victim agrees.
Importance:
Confirmed that serious bodily offences like attempt to murder cannot be settled unless quashed under special grounds by High Court.
5. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439
Facts:
This case involved high-profile economic offences and criminal conspiracy.
Held:
Supreme Court held that economic offences involving public trust and money are not private in nature, and cannot be compounded.
Even if parties reach a compromise, economic offences harm society and require strict punishment.
Importance:
Clarified that economic offences and white-collar crimes cannot be compromised as they affect public interest.
6. K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed & Anr (2010) 1 SCC 798
Facts:
The offence involved criminal breach of trust and cheating. Parties wanted to settle.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized that only those offences listed under Section 320 CrPC can be compounded.
The Court cannot allow compounding of offences not mentioned under this section.
Importance:
Established that courts have no power to permit compounding beyond the scope of Section 320, unless the matter is brought under Section 482 CrPC for quashing.
✅ Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Issue | Held / Importance |
|---|---|---|
| Gian Singh v. State of Punjab | Compromise in non-compoundable offences | Quashing possible in private matters under Section 482 |
| Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab | Guidelines for quashing proceedings | Laid down detailed principles |
| B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana | 498A dispute resolved | High Court can quash even non-compoundable matrimonial offences |
| State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat | Section 307 IPC | Serious bodily crimes cannot be compounded |
| Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI | Economic offences | Cannot be compromised; affect public at large |
| K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed | Scope of Section 320 | Only listed offences can be compounded |
✅ Conclusion
Compounding is a way to settle minor offences to save time and resources.
For non-compoundable offences, the only option is to seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC, and even then, courts will check if the offence affects society or is private in nature.
Courts aim to balance individual rights, justice, and societal interest before allowing compounding or quashing of criminal cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments