Compounding of Offences - CRPC 320

TABLE 1:

2.     The second class of offences which require prior permission of the court before compounding them by the parties are mentioned in subsection 2 of section 320. They are- 

TABLE 2:

Provisions relating to compounding of offences

·      320 (3)- Says that if an offence which is compoundable in nature, i.e., mentioned under this section, the abetment of such an offence or attempt to commit such an offence is also compoundable in nature. This in other words means that if person A has tried to commit a compoundable offence or abetted in the commission of a compoundable offence, then in that case, the abetment or attempt is also compoundable in nature. However, this is only true for those offences the abetment and attempt of which are themselves offences. For example, if person A has committed cheating, then cheating is a compoundable offence, and the parties can arrive at a settlement between themselves. But let’s say if A has attempted to commit cheating or abetted/helped another person to commit the crime of cheating, then this attempt and abetment is also compoundable in nature. 

·      320 (4)- Talks about the situations where the victim is a minor/ lunatic or dead. This section suggests that when a victim is a minor (under 18 years of age) or where the victim is of unsound mind then a guardian representing such minor or lunatic can compound the offence on their behalf. But this can only be done by the permission of the court. So, before a guardian can compound an offence on behalf of a minor, the permission of the court has to be taken. Subclause 4 of subsection 4 states that when the person who had the ability to compound the offence is dead, then a legal representative of that person can compound an offence on his/her behalf provided that there is prior permission by the court. 

·      320 (5) - States that when the accused is put on trial for a compoundable offence or when that accused has been convicted by a court and an appeal as against the conviction is pending, then compounding at that stage is not allowed without the permission of the court in which the accused is put on trial and the court where the appeal is pending. In this case, it doesn’t matter if the offence belongs to class 1 or class 2 (table 1 or table 2). 

·      320 (6) - Allows the High Court under section 401 of CrPC and the Sessions Court under section 399 of CrPC to grant the permission to compound offences where the person seeking the permission is competent to compound the offence. Section 401 and 399 of CrPC talk about the revisionary powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court respectively. The term revisionary power means that in some cases, appeal to a higher court as against the order of conviction of a lower court is not allowed. In such cases, there come instances where justice isn’t properly served, and the person convicted cannot even appeal because the power to appeal is a limited power. Under these sections. The high court acts like a court of appeal wherein the court looks at whether any injustice as to the jurisdiction, points of law, abuse of power by the lower court etc. has been committed. 

·      320 (8) - This clause talks about what is the result of compounding an offence. The result of compounding an offence leads to the acquittal of the accused. It doesn’t matter if the FIR had been filed or if the trial had started, as long as the compounding of the offence has happened with the permission of the court, the accused gets exonerated of all the charges levied against him. 

Salient features of section 320 

·      The lists mentioned are exhaustive in nature. 

·      No person other than the victim (people mentioned in column 3 of each table) are allowed to compound the offence. 

·      After the offence has been compounded, the accused gets acquitted, and the court cannot try the case anymore. 

·      Section 34 and 149 of IPC were later added to the list of compoundable offences. Section 34 pertains to the common intention of the parties and section 149 pertains to the common object of the parties. 

Important Supreme Court cases-

1.     B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana- In this case, the accused were charged with offences which were NON-COMPOUNDABLE in nature. However, the parties reached a settlement amicably and thereafter requested the High Court to quash the proceedings by virtue of its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC. In this case however, the court did not quash the proceedings. The matter went to the Supreme court where the court reversed the High Court judgement and quashed the proceedings. The line of reasoning given by the Supreme Court was that Section 482 provides the High Court with some inherent powers to serve the interests of justice. Even if in some cases where the offence is non-compoundable in nature, the High court can still quash the proceedings by virtue of section 482 in order to serve justice. Section 320 cannot be a bar in the way of serving justice. However, permitting a compromise between the parties in case of non- compoundable offences is extremely specific and depends on the facts and the circumstances of each and every case. 

2.     Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI- The ruling laid down in B.S. Joshi's case was upheld in this case. In this case, the charges against the accused consisted of both compoundable and non- compoundable offences. However, before the charge sheet was filed, the parties had arrived at a settlement and wanted to quash the criminal proceedings against the defendant. High court did not quash the proceedings but when the matter went to the Supreme court, the criminal proceedings were quashed. The Supreme court laid down that just because of the technicality provided under section 320 with regards to when a party can file for quashing of proceedings and when a party can arrive at a compromise, the interests of justice cannot be ignored. When the parties have already arrived at an arrangement, the veracity of which has been duly checked by the court, there is no point in going on with the criminal proceedings. 

3.     In a very recent case of Shiji @ Pappu vs. Radhika, the Supreme court reiterated that just because an offence is non- compoundable in nature, this does not mean that the high court cannot quash the proceedings against the accused by virtue of its inherent powers laid down in section 482. 

Looking for a Lawyer?

Lawtendo is a platform for you to help in hiring legal counsel. We work twenty-four hours to provide the best lawyers who suit the needs of the customers. We work with a wide range of lawyers whose areas of expertise range from divorce, court marriage, and registration, property possession delay, cheque, and money recovery; to will drafting and agreement, employment issues, and builder disputes. In addition to this, we also deal with cases of wrongful dishonour of cheques. Lawtendo is a hassle-free platform that works rigorously to make sure the best lawyer reaches their client in time.