Introduction:
When a victim or a witness to a crime reports it to the concerned authorities, the accused is detained and is usually taken to court for judicial proceedings. At times, the victim and the accused can come to an understanding where the victim may be willing to let go of the events and actions of the accused. This is known as compounding of an offence.
The basic procedure for reporting a crime that has been committed or witnessed is by filing a criminal complaint as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1]. Criminal complaint in India can be filed in two ways, (i) Filing an FIR (ii) filing a criminal complaint with a judicial magistrate.
In order to file a First Information report (FIR), the victim of a cognizable offence has to approach the police who on receiving information will prepare a written document, this document is the FIR. After which the police will listen to the victims or witnesses’ statement and direct the individual(s) to the District Magistrate for further action. After which due investigation is conducted and arrests are made.[2]
A crime can also be reported and filed by either the victim or person with knowledge of the crime before a competent Judicial Magistrate as per Section 200 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.[3]
In criminal law, the word “compoundable” or the ability to compound an offence in terms of an offence being committed against an individual (victim) by another (accused) is seen as a little absurd as the act cannot be mitigated by commercial or monetary compensation. The victim experiences hardship to his body or mind rather than experiencing a pecuniary loss. The question of compromise will come into picture where the loss sustained by the victim is equally compensable in terms of money by the other.[4]
In society, a criminal cannot be allowed to go about scot-free after committing a crime as at large it is a wrong done against society. The main objective of criminal law is to punish the criminal attitude of the accused rather than punishing him physically. The main intention of these punishments lies in preventing any repetitions of criminal offences in the future by these wrong doers.
Due to these reasons, criminal law provides the option for compoundability of certain offences.
At large, all criminal offences can be classified into Compoundable and Non-Compoundable offences.[5] Those offences where the complainant can take back the charges that are made against the accused are termed as compoundable offences. On the other hand, non-compoundable offences are those where the charges made against the accused cannot be taken back.
Let us take a deeper dive into these classifications of criminal offences.
Compoundable Offences
Compoundable offences are those offences which are less serious in nature where the complainant, being the person who filed the case i.e. the victim, enters into a compromise to take back and drop all charges made against the accused.
The act of dropping the charges or making such a compromise has to be “Bonafide”, i.e. it has to be done in good faith without any consideration that the complainant is not entitled to such as coercion, undue influence etc. In most scenarios, compoundable offences affect only private individuals and have no or almost no effect on the society.
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[6] provides compounding of offences. As per this section compoundable offences are categorized into two types, namely:
1. Court permission is not required before compounding
In this type, the compoundable offence can be compromised with or without seeking any permission from the court by the victim and the accused. The only requirement is to provide verification of the compromise in regards to whether it has been duly executed or not. These offences include adultery, defamation, causing hurt, criminal trespass, etc.
| Offence | IPC Section | Compoundable By |
| Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person. | 298 | The person whose religious feelings are intended to be wounded. |
| Voluntarily causing hurt. | 323 | The person to whom the hurt is caused. |
| Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation. | 334 | The person to whom the hurt is caused. |
| Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation. | 335 | The person to whom the hurt is caused. |
| Wrongfully restraining or confining any person. | 341, 342 | The person restrained or confined. |
| Wrongfully confining a person for three days or more | 343 | The person confined. |
| Wrongfully confining a person for ten days or more. | 344 | The person confined. |
| Wrongfully confining a person in secret. | 346 | The person confined. |
| Assault or use of criminal force. | 352, 355, 358 | The person assaulted or to whom criminal force is used. |
| Theft. | 379 | The owner of the property stolen. |
| Dishonest misappropriation of property. | 403 | The owner of the property misappropriated. |
| Criminal breach of trust by a carrier, wharfinger, etc. | 407 | The owner of the property in respect of which the breach of trust has been committed. |
| Dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen. | 411 | The owner of the property stolen. |
| Assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, knowing it to be stolen. | 414 | The owner of the property stolen. |
| Cheating. | 417 | The person cheated. |
| Cheating by personation. | 419 | The person cheated. |
| Fraudulent removal or concealment of property, etc., to prevent distribution among creditors. | 421 | The creditors who are affected thereby. |
| Fraudulently preventing from being made available for his creditors a debt or demand due to the offender. | 422 | The creditors who are affected thereby. |
| Fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration. | 423 | The person affected thereby. |
| Fraudulent removal or concealment of property. | 424 | The person affected thereby. |
| Mischief, when the only loss or damage caused is loss or damage to a private person. | 426, 427 | The person to whom the loss or damage is caused. |
| Mischief by killing or maiming animal. | 428 | The owner of the animal |
| Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc. | 429 | The owner of the cattle or animal. |
| Mischief by injury to works of irrigation by wrongfully diverting water when the only loss or damage caused is loss or damage to a private person. | 430 | The person to whom the loss or damage is caused. |
| Criminal trespass. | 447 | The person in possession of the property trespassed upon. |
| House-trespass. | 448 | The person in possession of the property trespassed upon. |
| House-trespass to commit an offence (other than theft) punishable with imprisonment. | 451 | The person in possession of the house trespassed upon. |
| Using a false trade or property mark. | 482 | The person to whom loss or injury is caused by such use. |
| Counterfeiting a trade or property mark used by another. | 483 | The person to whom loss or injury is caused by such use. |
| Knowingly selling, or exposing or possessing for sale or manufacturing purpose, goods marked with a counterfeit property mark. | 486 | The person to whom loss or injury is caused by such use. |
| Criminal breach of contract of service. | 491 | The person with whom the offender has contracted. |
| Adultery. | 497 | The husband of the woman. |
| Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman. | 498 | The husband of the woman and the woman |
| Defamation, except such cases as are specified against section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) in column 1 of the Table under sub-section (2). | 500 | The person defamed. |
| Printing or engraving matter, | 501 | The person defamed. |
| Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing it to contain such matter. | 502 | The person defamed. |
| Insult intended to provoke a breach of the peace. | 504 | The person insulted. |
| Criminal intimidation. | 506 | The person intimidated. |
| Inducing person to believe himself an object of divine displeasure. | 508 | The person induced. |
2. Court permission is required before compounding
In this type, the compoundable offence can be compromised by the victim and the offender only after acquiring permission from the court. The Permission can be secured by filing a compromise in court, and such permission can only be granted if the prosecution is pending before the judge, because if it is granted, it is unconstitutional.[7] These offences include theft, criminal breach of trust, causing miscarriage, assault on a woman with the intention to outrage her modesty, etc.
| Offence | IPC Section | Compoundable By |
| Causing miscarriage. | 312 | The woman to whom miscarriage is caused. |
| Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. | 325 | The person to whom hurt is caused. |
| Causing hurt by doing an act so rashly and negligently as to the safety of others. | 337 | The person to whom hurt is caused. |
| Causing grievous hurt by doing an act so rashly and negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others. | 338 | The person to whom hurt is caused. |
| Assault or criminal force in attempting wrongfully to confine a person. | 357 | The person assaulted or to whom the force was used. |
| Theft, by clerk or servant of property in possession of master. | 381 | The owner of the property stolen. |
| Criminal breach of trust | 406 | The owner of property in respect of which breach of trust has been committed. |
| Criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant. | 408 | The owner of the property in respect of which the breach of trust has been committed. |
| Cheating a person whose interest the offender was bound, either by law or by legal contract, to protect. | 418 | The person cheated. |
| Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. | 420 | The person cheated. |
| Marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife. | 494 | The husband or wife of the person so marrying. |
| Defamation against the President or the Vice-President or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister in respect of his public functions when instituted upon a complaint made by the Public Prosecutor. | 500 | The person defamed. |
| Uttering words or sounds or making gestures or exhibiting any object intending to insult the modesty of a woman or intruding upon the privacy of a woman. | 509 | The woman whom it was intended to insult or whose privacy was intruded upon. |
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[8] provides the above tables containing two columns specifying the offence and the it’s section under the Indian Penal Code, 1860[9] as well as a column of “compoundable by”, this column provides who can compound the offence. These tables are available for the two types of compoundable offences and all those offences that are covered under them as compoundable.
Any appeals for the compounding of an offence must be submitted to the same court where the trial is proceeding. After the crime has been compounded, it would have the same effect as if the accused had been cleared of the charges.[10]
In the case Javerbhai v. Smt. Maria Benvinda da costa[11], the court held that the compounding of the offences indicated that the person against whom the crime was committed, i.e. the victim, had received certain compensation that caused him/her against drop all charges and accusation and to abstain from trial.
Non-Compoundable Offences
Non-compoundable offences are those offences where the crime committed is of a grave and serious nature and the accused cannot be allowed to go scot-free. These offences cannot be compounded in any manner, they can only be quashed i.e. rejected as invalid. All offences other than those mentioned in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not compoundable.[12] Examples of a few non-compoundable offences are, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, assault or criminal force to women with intent to outrage her modesty, wrongfully confining a person for three or more days, etc.
In most cases, non-compoundable offences are filed by the state i.e. the police where the question of compromise by the complainant does not arise. Non-compoundable offences affect both a private individual as well as the society.
The compromise of these offences cannot be done by any means, even the courts do not have the power and authority to compound them. Only a full trial would provide for an outcome of either conviction or release of the offender depending on the facts and evidence provided in court.
But in the case of Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan[13], the Supreme Court held and permitted for the compounding of non-compounding offences by using its power under Article 142 of The Indian Constitution[14] whereby they can render complete justice to the parties concerned. But this decision was held as Per incuriam i.e. through lack of care in the case Ram Lal v. State of J&K[15], as due regard for the legal provision was not given and Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[16] was completely ignored. In certain special cases, the courts can provide a ruling of compounding a non-compoundable offence and can instead condition the accused to pay compensation if the parties have reconciled their differences in order to preserve amity and good relations.[17]
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[18] is provided to the High Court’s inherently whereby, if circumstances of the case are not too dangerous, or not too heinous, and not endangering the public life or society and at the same time grilling the accused person for a longer time in the prison may lead to irreparable injustice, then the courts can quash the trial court proceedings and may allow the compounding of the case, even though it falls under the limits of non-compoundable offences.[19]
The use of Section 482 cannot be done as per one’s whims and fancies, the very meaning of inherent power provides that the courts exercise their discretion to some extent subject to certain limitations. This section has to be exercised carefully, cautiously, judiciously exercised. The cases where this section can be used are those only private individuals are affected.
Where and when Section 482 is to be implemented depends on the facts, evidence and the interpretation of the judge.
If the courts were to misinterpreted and whimsically use Section 482, the public would lose their trust and confidence in the judicial system eventually jeopardizing the independence of judiciary itself. A proper balance has to be struck between Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[20] and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973[21].
Table of Differentiation
| Grounds | Compoundable Offence | Non-Compoundable Offence |
| Filling of Case | Generally filed by private individuals. | Generally filed by the state, i.e. the police. |
| Nature of Crime | Less serious / Minor offences | Serious, grave and criminal offences |
| Withdrawal of Charges | Charges can be withdrawn by the victim on arriving at a “bonafide” compromise with the accused. | The charges against the accused cannot be withdrawn. |
| Compoundability | Some offences can be compounded without the permission of the court while some require the courts permission. Table of these offences are provided under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. | These offences cannot be compounded but only quashed. But in some very special cases, even the non-compoundable offences can be compounded. |
| Affected Parties | Private Individuals | Private Individuals as well as the society at large. |
Conclusion
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for compounding of offences through which a victim can drop all allegations if the offence is minor and allow the accused to go scot-free.
In my opinion, this measure stated under the Code of Criminal Procedure.1973 is well thought out but at times lacks in its execution. The idea of forgiving the accused by the victim on arriving at a compromise is humbling. If this section did not exist and the parties decided to let go of the events and move on, there would be no option of dropping the charges without the accused doing time or paying compensation.
References:
[1] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[2] Vikram Shah, File A Criminal Complaint In India: A Step-By-Step Process, Vakil Search (Nov. 30,2016) https://vakilsearch.com/advice/file-a-criminal-complaint-in-india/.
[3] § 200, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[4] Vijayalakshmi & G. Sudhavani, Compoundability of non-compoundable offences, Legal Services India.com ( 2013) http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2392/Compoundability-of-non-compoundable-offences.html.
[5] Deb, What is a Compoundable and Non Compoundable offence in India, Law House (Mar. 9, 2019), https://www.lawhousekolkata.com/2019/03/09/what-is-a-compoundable-and-non-compoundable-offence-in-india/.
[6] § 320, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[7] Lawnn.com, Difference Between Compoundable & Non-Compoundable Offences [Updated], lawnn.com ( Oct. 11, 2014), https://www.lawnn.com/difference-compoundable-offenses-non-compoundable-offenses/.
[8] § 320, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[9] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No.14, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
[10] Chikirsha Mohanty, What is a Compoundable and Non Compoundable offence in India, LawRato.com ( June 26, 2019), https://lawrato.com/indian-kanoon/criminal-law/what-is-a-compoundable-and-non-compoundable-offence-in-india-611.
[11] Javerbhai v. Smt. Maria Bemvinda da costa (1971) A.I.R. 1971 Goa 46 (India).
[12] Parita M, Difference between Compoundable and non compoundable offence, NearLaw.com ( Jan. 20, 2018), http://kanoon.nearlaw.com/2018/01/20/compoundable-non-compoundable-offence/.
[13] Mahesh Chand V State of Rajasthan (1990) SCC (Cri) 159 (India).
[14] India Const. art 142
[15] Ram Lal v. State of J&K (1999) 2 SCC 213 (India).
[16] [16] § 320, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[17] Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. (1987) 2005 1 SCC 347 (India).
[18] [18] § 482, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[19] Vijayalakshmi & G. Sudhavani, Compoundability of non-compoundable offences, Legal Services India.com ( 2013) http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2392/Compoundability-of-non-compoundable-offences.html.
[20] § 320, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[21] § 482, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
0 Comments