CrPC – I (Online Examination)

Compoundable and Non-Compoundable offences

Submitted to Dr Asad Malik by Syed Umair Ahmed Andrabi for the fulfilment of academic
requirement of online examination (CrPC – I, VIIIth Semester)
Table of Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................................3
Compoundable offences.....................................................................................................3
B. S Joshi......................................................................................................................................4
Nikhil Merchant v. CBI..................................................................................................................4
Manoj Sharma v. State 2008........................................................................................................4
Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab 2008..............................................................................................4
Non Compoundable offences.............................................................................................5
Example of non-compoundable offences.....................................................................................5
Difference between Compoundable and Non-compoundable offence:................................5
Compounding of Non-Compoundable Offences..................................................................6
Background..................................................................................................................................7
Analysis........................................................................................................................................7
Decision.......................................................................................................................................9
Other Judicial pronouncements........................................................................................10
Prabhat Bhai Ahir v. S/o Gujarat 2017 SC...................................................................................10
Shiji @ Pappu & others v Radhika and another 2011 10 SCC......................................................10
CBI v. Mahindra Singh 2016 SCC.................................................................................................10
Narinder Singh v State of Punjab (2014).....................................................................................10
Md. Faizan Aamir Khan v. State of Maharashtra 2016................................................................11
State of Rajasthan v Shambhu Kewat (2014)..............................................................................11
Bibliography....................................................................................................................12
Introduction
Compoundable offences are those that can be compromised, i.e. the complainant can agree to
take back the charges levied against the accused, whereas, non - compoundable offences are
the more serious offences in which the parties cannot compromise. 
 

Compoundable offences

Compoundable offences are those offences where, the complainant (one who has filed
the case, i.e. the victim), enter into a compromise, and agrees to have the charges
dropped against the accused. However, such a compromise, should be a "Bona fide," and
not for any consideration to which the complainant is not entitled to.

Section 320 of the CrPC looks at compounding of offences. Compoundable offences are less
serious criminal offences and are of two different types mentioned in tables in Section 320 of
the CrPC, as follows:

1. Court permission is not required before compounding – Examples of these offences

include adultery, causing hurt, defamation criminal trespass.
2. Court permission is required before compounding – Examples of such offences are theft,
criminal breach of trust, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, assault on a woman with intention
to outrage her modesty, dishonest misappropriation of property amongst others.

Application for compounding the offence shall be made before the same court before which
the trial is proceeding. Once an offence has been compounded it shall have the same effect, as
if, the accused has been acquitted of the charges.
B. S Joshi
In B. S Joshi case. The court held that the inherent power of the court u/s 482 of crpc can be
used to quash non-compoundable offences.

Nikhil Merchant v. CBI

The court applied this decision in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and took note of the settlement to
quash the criminal proceedings under offences of 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC r/w s. 120(B) IPC
since the criminal proceedings had an overtone of civil proceedings and thus there was no
need to continue.

Manoj Sharma v. State 2008

In Manoj Sharma v. State 2008, the question before the cort was weather FIR under s.420,
468, 471, 34, 120B IPC can be quashed u/s 482 of CrPC or Art 226 of the constitution where
accused and complainant have compromised and settled the matter between themselves?
The Court held that the quashing proceedings are not the same as compounding of the
offences.

Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab 2008

In Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab 2008, a two judges bench didn’t consider the judicial
pronouncement in BS Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and the matter was referred to a
larger bench.
Offences related to 420, 120B, (non-compoundable) criminal proceedings can be quashed if it
is satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they are
interested to restore peace in the society.
Non Compoundable offences
Non- Compoundable offences are some offences, which cannot be compounded. They can
only be quashed. The reason for this is, because the nature of offence is so grave and
criminal, that the Accused cannot be allowed to go scot-free. Here, in these types of cases
generally, it is the "state", i.e. police, who has filed the case, and hence the question of
complainant entering into compromise does not arise.
Under a non-compoundable offense, a private party as well as the society, both are affected
by such offenses.

In Non-compoundable offense, no compromise is allowed. Even the court does not have the
authority and power to compound such offense. Full trail is held which ends with the
acquittal or conviction of the offender, based on the evidence given.
Offences other than those mentioned in Section 320 of the Code are not compoundable.
Section 320 of the code is ‘exhaustive’ of the circumstances and conditions under which
composition can be effected. If a criminal case is declared to be non-compoundable, then it is
against public policy to compound it, and agreement to that end is wholly void in law. The
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers cannot permit compounding of non-
compoundable offences, only in special cases the Supreme Court can grant such permission.

Example of non-compoundable offences 

 Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

 Causing grievous hurt by doing on act so rashly and negligently as to endanger
human life or the personal safety of others.
 Wrongfully confining a person for three days or more.
 Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage per modesty.
 Dishonest misappropriation of property.

Difference between Compoundable and Non-compoundable

offence:
1. Withdrawal of Charges: In compoundable offence, charges against the accused can
be withdrawn. While in non-compoundable offence, the charges against the accused
cannot withdrawn.
 2. Nature of Crime: In compoundable offence, the nature of the crime not so serious.
While, in non-compoundable offence, the nature of the crime is serious.

3. Compoundable: In compoundable offence compoundable by with permission or

without permission of court. While in non-compoundable offence, offence cannot be
compounded. its only quashed.

4. Affected parties: In compoundable, impacts only private person. While in non-

compoundable offence, affects both, private person as well as the society at large.

5. Filing of case: In compoundable offence, case generally filed by private person.

While in non-compoundable offence, case generally filed by the state.

Compounding of Non-Compoundable Offences

The issue of compounding of non-compoundable offences by a high court in exercise of its
inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been
addressed by the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in a catena of decisions. However,
there was a conflict in law due to varying observations made by the Supreme Court. To
address this conflict, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising A K Sikri J, S
Abdul Nazeer J and M R Shah J, in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh v Lakshmi
Narayan and others [Criminal Appeal No 349 of 2019 along with Criminal Appeal No 350 of
2019], laid down guidelines for the exercise of inherent power of high courts under Section
482 of the CrPC while quashing criminal proceedings in case of non-compoundable offences.
Background
In the present case, two appeals with the same question of law were tagged together. The
offences involved in the first appeal were punishable under Section 307 (attempt to murder)
and Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC); and, in the second appeal, the offences were punishable under
Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), Section 308 (attempt to commit
culpable homicide), Section 294 (obscene acts and songs), and Section 34 of the IPC.  The
High Court of Madhya Pradesh (MP High Court) quashed the criminal proceedings in
exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC on ground of compromise arrived
between the accused and the complainant. The MP High Court relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Shiji Pappu & others v Radhika and another ((2011) 10 SCC
705) wherein the offence had its origin in a civil dispute. Aggrieved by this decision, the
State of Madhya Pradesh (Appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court.

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a three-judge bench, given the
conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v State of Punjab
((2014) 6 SCC 466) (Narinder Singh Case) and State of Rajasthan v Shambhu Kewat ((2014)
4 SCC 149) (Shambu Kewat Case).

Analysis
Section 320 of the CrPC provides for compounding of certain offences which are punishable
under the IPC. Section 482 of the CrPC confers inherent powers on a high court to pass
orders to (a) give effect to the CrPC; (b) prevent abuse of the process of any court; or (c)
otherwise to secure ends of justice.

The Supreme Court referred to various judgements including the case of Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab ((2012) 10 SCC 303) (Gian Singh Case), where the Supreme Court held that the
high court must refrain from quashing criminal proceedings if the offence involved is a
heinous and serious offence or when public interest is involved. However, if the offence is
merely a civil matter, offences arising from commercial transactions, where the wrong is
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their dispute, the proceedings may be
quashed. If possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of criminal case would cause
extreme injustice to the accused, high courts may quash the criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court noted that, in the Shambhu Kewat Case, it was observed that the power
of a criminal court is circumscribed by Section 320 of the CrPC while compounding of
offences and it is guided solely by it. On the other hand, the high court is guided by the
material on record to form an opinion whether to quash a criminal complaint in exercise of its
power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The exercise of this power is to meet the ends of
justice, although the ultimate consequence of this may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

In the Narinder Singh Case, the Supreme Court took into consideration the Gian Singh Case
and observed that the high court can quash the criminal proceedings even in case of non-
compoundable offences in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC,
when the parties have entered into a compromise. However, this power must be used
sparingly and with caution. The Supreme Court observed that even though offence under
Section 307 of the IPC is against the society, the high courts can examine whether the
incorporation of Section 307 of the IPC is for name sake or there actually is enough evidence
to prove it.

The Supreme Court ultimately laid down that the decision in the Narinder Singh Case must
be read harmoniously and as a whole in the circumstances existing therein.

In light of catena of decisions and considering the law on the point, the Supreme Court laid
down the following guidelines for quashing criminal proceeding in case of non-
compoundable offences by high courts when invoking their inherent powers under Section
482 of the CrPC:

Predominantly civil nature of offence - The power conferred on high Courts under

  Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceeding for non-compoundable

offences under section 320 of the CrPC can be exercised where the offence involved
is merely a predominantly civil and commercial matter;
Heinous and serious offences - High courts must refrain from quashing criminal
  
proceedings if the offence is a heinous and serious offence which has a serious
impact on society;
  Offences under section 307 IPC - Even though the offence under Section 307 IPC
falls under the category of heinous and serious offences and is against the society, the
high courts may not rest its decision merely on the fact that the offence involved is
under Section 307 of the IPC. The high court may examine whether the incorporation
of Section 307 of the IPC is for name sake or there actually is enough evidence to
 prove it. For this purpose, the high court may examine the nature of the injury,
whether the injury is on a vital body part, nature of the weapon used, etc. This would
be permissible only after the evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed /
charge is framed and / or during the trial. It is not permissible when the matter is
under investigation;
Special statutes - The high court must refrain from quashing the criminal proceeding

  based on compromise between the victim and the offender, if the offence is under a
special statute like Prevention of Corruption Act or committed by public servants
while working in that capacity;
Antecedents / conduct of the accused - When the offences involved are private in
nature, the high court, while exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC in
  
respect of non-compoundable offences on ground that there is a compromise /
settlement between the victim and accused, is required to consider the antecedents
and conduct of the accused.
Decision
Applying the guidelines to the facts of both the cases, the Supreme Court held that the MP
High Court had erred by mechanically quashing the first information report. The gravity of
the offences and the conduct of the accused was not considered. Hence, both orders of the
MP High Court were set aside.

Other Judicial pronouncements

Prabhat Bhai Ahir v. S/o Gujarat 2017 SC
In this case the hon’ble court discussed the scope of s. 482 CrPC. The court denied to quash
an FIR on the basis of the background of the petitioner.

Shiji @ Pappu & others v Radhika and another 2011 10 SCC

 The case had its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which had been resolved
between them. The continuance of the prosecution when the complainant was not ready to
support the allegations which were later described by her as arising out of some
"misunderstanding and misconception" was considered to be a futile exercise that would
serve no purpose. The two alleged eye witnesses who were closely related to the complainant
were also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the
proceedings was thus considered nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 Cr.P.C. could,
in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the
process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the Courts below.

CBI v. Mahindra Singh 2016 SCC

In the cases of Financial crime, defrauding large amount of money, the court must not be
swayed by the return of meony to the bank which is defrauded because in such cases society
at large is at stake. Thus the criminal proceedings were restored.

Narinder Singh v State of Punjab (2014)

The Apex Court had observed that the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation keeping in mind the timing of the
settlement. The Court elucidated that it was not bound to quash the proceedings even if the
compromise has been effected between the parties. However, it considered the fact that the
appellant had already been suffering the agony of criminal trial and this very fact would act
as the mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period
already undergone further directing the parties to remain bound by the terms of the
compromise.

Md. Faizan Aamir Khan v. State of Maharashtra 2016

Accused has induced complainant to have a physical relationship with the false promise of
marriage. An FIR was filed by the girl. Now the petitioner agreed to marry the girl. The
Bombay High Court said that the marriage between the two was not a ground to quash the
FIR. Petition was dismissed.

State of Rajasthan v Shambhu Kewat (2014)

Court had noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences conferred on a
court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. In the said decision, this Court further
observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by
the provisions contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the court is guided solely and squarely
thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a
criminal proceedings or criminal complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is guided by the
material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power,
although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

Bibliography

Statutes

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Constitution of India, 1950

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Books

R. V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 1998.

D. D. Basu, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi, 2001

Other

Class Notes, Dr Mohd. Asad Malik, Professor concerned, CrPC – I .

Online resources

www.indiankaknoon.com

www.legalservicesindia.com

www.vakilno1.com

www.manupatra.com

www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in

www.scconline.com

www.livelaw.in