Compoundable Offences

A fundamental provision within the legal landscape, Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stands as a cornerstone for regulating the compoundable offences. This section serves as a beacon of conciliation, urging parties to find common ground and harmony. 

The essence of Section 320 lies in promoting reconciliation between disputing parties through a mechanism known as compounding an offence – a process wherein the complainant consents to withdraw charges against the accused.

In this context, offences are categorised into two distinct groups: compoundable and non-compoundable. Compoundable offences pave the way for resolution through mutual agreement, enabling the complainant to relinquish charges, while non-compoundable infractions denote more severe transgressions where reconciliation eludes resolution.

What are Compoundable Offences?

Compoundable offences are offences that can be settled through mutual agreement between the parties involved. In these cases, the complainant agrees to drop the charges against the accused, leading to a resolution of the dispute without a full-fledged trial. Such offences are distinguished from non-compoundable offences, which are more serious in nature and do not allow for such settlements.

Compoundable offences are those offences discussed in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. These offences are situations where the harmed person (the person who made the complaint, called the complainant) decides to withdraw the accusations against the person accused of the wrongdoing. 

However, these agreements should be made honestly and not involve compensation that the complainant is not entitled to. The resolution of a compoundable offence can happen with or without the court’s agreement. If needed, the person who filed the complaint can ask the court for permission to settle the offence.

When an offence is compounded, it means the person who experienced the crime receives some form of compensation from the accused person. This compensation isn’t necessarily money and it’s meant to avoid going through a legal trial.

In some cases, during an ongoing court case, the parties involved might come to an agreement and halt the court proceedings temporarily. This is called ‘compounding’. Compoundable offences are situations where reaching an agreement is acceptable. Offences like causing harm, wrongful restraint, assault, molestation, fraud, adultery and similar crimes fall into this category.

Nature of Compoundable Offences

For an offence to be considered a compoundable offence, it needs to have certain characteristics:

• The severity of the offence must not be extremely high in a compoundable offence.
• Compoundable offences are typically of a private nature. Private offences negatively affect an individual’s personal rights or identity. These offences should not harm the general public and should not go against the well-being of the state.

Offences like rape, murder and dacoity are extremely serious in nature and therefore cannot be resolved through a compromise.

List of Compoundable Offences under CrPC

Section 320 of the CrPC outlines two categories of offences that can be settled based on the victim’s decision. In the first category, court approval is not required to settle the offence. In the second category, court approval is necessary before any offence can be settled through a compromise.

Section 320 (1): Offences That Do Not Need Approval from the Court

As per Section 320(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the law allows offences to be resolved without needing the court’s agreement. Specific sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, applicable to these crimes, enable them to be settled by individuals listed in the third column of that table.

Section 320(2): Offences That Require Approval From Court

According to Section 320(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the law allows for the settlement of offences that require court approval. Specific sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deal with these offences, provide the possibility of settling them by individuals listed in the third column of the table.

Section 320(3): Compoundable Offences and Their Extension

This provision delineates that if an offence falls within the category of compoundable offences, aiding, abetting, attempting its commission or involvement under Section 34 or Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code introduces an additional offence that is also subject to compromise. 

In simpler terms, if someone attempts or assists in committing a compoundable offence, that effort or support can likewise be resolved through a mutual agreement. This pertains exclusively to cases of instigating, attempting and committing offences themselves.

Section 320(4): Scope of Compounding and Assistance

To illustrate, if an individual, “A,” deliberately inflicts harm upon someone’s religious sentiments through their speech, this constitutes a compoundable offence and the involved parties may find a harmonious resolution. In a similar vein, if “A” endeavours to steal or provides assistance to someone else in a theft, these attempts and acts of assistance can also be settled through compromise.

Furthermore, this subsection addresses scenarios involving minor or mentally incapacitated victims, as well as deceased victims. Under this clause, a guardian is empowered to resolve a charge on behalf of an underage (18) or mentally impaired victim. 

The involvement of the court is crucial for a guardian to address a crime involving a child. Additionally, a legal representative of a deceased person, as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), can reach a compromise on that person’s behalf after obtaining prior court approval.

Section 320(5): Limitations on Compounding During Trial and Appeals

This section specifies that the compounding of an offence, without court consent, is not feasible while the accused is undergoing trial for a compoundable offence or if the accused has been convicted by a court and an appeal against the conviction is in progress. This applies regardless of whether the offence falls within the purview of Section 320(1) or (2), encompassing both class 1 and class 2 offences.

Section 320(6): Authorisation for Compounding through Legal Channels

If the person seeking authorisation is eligible, the High Court can grant permission to compound offences under Section 401 of the CrPC and the Sessions Court can do so under Section 399 of the CrPC. The revisionary powers of the High Court and Sessions Court are stipulated in Sections 401 and 399 of the CrPC, respectively.

Section 320(7): Restrictions on Compounding with Prior Convictions

This section underscores that an offence cannot be compounded if the accused faces supplementary or different penalties due to a previous conviction.

Section 320(8): Effect of Compounding of Offences

According to Section 320(8) of the CrPC, when an offence is compounded as per the provisions of Section 320, the accused person involved in the offence is effectively acquitted. Compounding an offence results in the dismissal of the allegations made against the accused.

The act of compounding holds the same effect whether the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged or if the trial had already commenced. As long as the offence was settled with the court’s approval, the accused person is cleared of all charges.

Section 320(9) – Conditions for Compounding

Section 320(9) establishes that an offence cannot be deemed as compounded unless certain conditions are satisfied. Additionally, it was established in the case of Gurcharan Singh Bhawani v. State (2002) that offences not punishable by a fine under Section 320(9) cannot be prosecuted under Section 482.

Legal Provisions Dealing with Compoundable Offences under CrPC

Compoundable Offences in Criminal Law

Section 320 of the CrPC deals with compoundable offences. This section outlines a range of crimes under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, that can be settled through an agreement between the victims and the wrongdoers. Such an agreement between both parties is known as ‘compounding of an offence’. Consequently, specific IPC offences that are explicitly listed in Section 320 of the CrPC can be resolved through a compromise agreed upon by both parties.

Under Section 401 of the CrPC, the High Court or under Section 399 of the CrPC, a court of session, while exercising its revisionary powers, can allow an individual to settle any offence that falls within the scope of compromise as defined in Section 320 of the CrPC.

When an act is considered compoundable according to Section 320 of the CrPC, this extends to not only the act itself but also to the abetment of such an act or an attempt to commit it (provided attempting the act constitutes an offence in itself). Moreover, if the accused person is held liable under Sections 34 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code, then the process of compounding applies to these situations as well.

Compoundable Offences under Various Laws

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

In accordance with Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Lok Adalat is empowered to mediate and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the conflicting parties regarding any matter related to a crime that can be settled under any legal statute.

Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999

A breach of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 is defined as contravening the Act’s regulations, laws orders, notices or directives. Compounding such violations involves acknowledging the violation voluntarily, admitting guilt and seeking restitution. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) possesses the authority to compound any violation listed in Section 13 of the FEMA Act.

Companies Act, 2013

Under the Companies Act, 2013, if an offence was committed or a breach of a rule, regulation or obligation occurs, directors have the option to seek the compounding of the offence instead of initiating legal proceedings, provided the offence is compoundable. Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with the compounding of offences. Section 441(1) stipulates that an offence punishable only by a fine can be compounded.

Case Laws Dealing with Compoundable Offences under CrPC

Mahalovya Gauba v. State of Punjab and Another (2021)

In the case of Mahalovya Gauba v. State of Punjab and Another, the Court established that criminal proceedings involving compoundable offences can be divided into two categories:

Settlement without Court Consent – Under Section 320(1) of the CrPC, criminal offences can be settled without requiring the court’s consent.

Settlement with Court Consent – Under Section 320(2) of the CrPC, certain criminal proceedings can be settled with the court’s approval.

The Lok Adalat is empowered to handle compoundable criminal cases falling into both of these categories, those which can be settled without the court’s consent (Section 320(1)) and those that require the court’s consent (Section 320(2)).

While Section 320(1) of the CrPC doesn’t explicitly state that compounding can only occur after filing a case under Section 173(2) of the CrPC and not before, the wording in Section 320(2) seems to suggest the same. The question arises whether, during the investigative stage, compoundable criminal cases can be settled before the submission of a case file under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.

Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa (1999)

In the case of Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court emphasised that Section 320 of the CrPC, 1973 provides a comprehensive framework for compounding charges listed under the IPC. Section 320(1) allows for the settlement of crimes mentioned in the table through individuals listed in the third column of that table. 

Similarly, Section 320(2) permits the complainant to settle the crimes listed in the table with the court’s consent. On the contrary, Section 320(9) explicitly stipulates that “no offence shall be compounded except as provided by Section 320 of the CrPC.” According to this statutory provision, only the offences listed in  Section 320(1) and (2) be compounded, while other IPC offences cannot be settled.

Biswabahan Das v. Gopen Chandra Hasarika & Ors (1967)

In Biswabahan Das v. Gopen Chandra Hasarika & Ors., a three-judge bench led by G. K. Mitter concluded that if a crime impacts the complainant in a personal capacity, the appropriate resolution for such a crime could potentially be achieved through compounding.

Conclusion

The concept of compoundable offences, as detailed within Section 320 of the CrPC, presents a crucial avenue for conflict resolution. This provision delineates a range of offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, that can be settled through mutual agreement between the aggrieved and the accused parties. Notably, this mechanism offers dual facets: compounding without court consent (Section 320(1)) and with court approval (Section 320(2)). This legal principle has garnered attention from various legal cases.