H. N. Pandakumar vs. State of Karnataka, Miscellaneous Application No. 2667 of 2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 895 of 2024

The Supreme Court of India, in H. N. Pandakumar vs. State of Karnataka [Miscellaneous Application No. 2667 of 2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 895 of 2024, decided January 7, 2025; 2025 INSC 37], dealt with the compounding of a non-compoundable offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following a compromise between the parties after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Facts and Background
H. N. Pandakumar was convicted by the trial court for an offence under Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, and fined. The Karnataka High Court reduced his sentence but upheld the conviction. Pandakumar’s SLP against the High Court’s judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court in January 2024.

Subsequently, the parties reached a compromise, including payment of Rs. 5,80,000 as compensation and resolution of related disputes, including property matters. Pandakumar filed a miscellaneous application seeking permission to compound the offence despite it being non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Legal Issues
Whether the Supreme Court can allow compounding of a non-compoundable offence under Section 326 IPC in exceptional circumstances.

The scope of the Court’s inherent powers to give effect to compromises reached between parties post-trial or post-appeal.

Balancing public interest in prosecution of serious offences with the parties’ autonomy and reconciliation.

Supreme Court’s Findings
The Court acknowledged that Section 326 IPC is a non-compoundable offence under the CrPC, ordinarily precluding compounding by the parties. However, it held that the Supreme Court’s inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution enable it to allow compounding in exceptional cases where justice and fairness warrant.

The Court found the circumstances of this case exceptional:

A genuine compromise was reached with full consent of both parties.

The parties were distantly related and lived in close proximity, making reconciliation socially desirable.

The compensation was substantial and agreed upon.

The matter had undergone full trial and appellate scrutiny.

The Supreme Court allowed the application, permitting compounding of the offence and reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by Pandakumar. It emphasized that such relief is an exception, not a rule, and must be exercised sparingly.

Conclusion
This judgment clarifies that:

The Supreme Court can exercise its constitutional and inherent powers to allow compounding of non-compoundable offences in exceptional circumstances.

Genuine compromise and social reconciliation can justify such exercise, balancing law enforcement with restorative justice.

The ruling promotes judicial pragmatism and flexibility to achieve equitable outcomes without undermining the rule of law.