GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY

Greater Noida, U.P. (India)

SCHOOL OF LAW, JUSTICE AND GOVERNANCE

Course – BA LLB Semester - VIth, Section - A

Subject – The Code of Criminal Procedure

Topic – “Compounding of Offences and Withdrawal from prosecution”

Submitted to: Udit Pandit Sir

Submitted by: Kshitij Rastogi

18/ILB/087

3rd Year, Section A

Introduction
 Section 320 deals with compounding of Offences under the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
 It means disposal of criminal offences by compromise.
 It is an amicable settlement between the victim and accused or
offender.
The compounding of an offence signifies that the person against whom
the offence has been committed has received some gratification, not
necessarily of a pecuniary character, to act as an inducement for his
desiring to abstain from a prosecution, and this section provides that if
the offence be compoundable, composition shall have the effect of an
acquittal.
A compromise of a compoundable case deprives the Magistrate of his
jurisdiction to try it. The compromise is complete as soon as it is made
and has the effect of an acquittal even if one of the parties subsequently
resides from it. If it is proved that the parties signed the document of
compromise and understood its contents, it is incompetent for either to
withdraw from it. When acquittal is based on the compounding of an
offence, and such compounding is invalid as being not permissible by
section 320, the acquittal is liable to be set aside.
Persons who can compound [Sub-section (1)].—
No permission of the Court is necessary for compounding the offences
mentioned in this sub-section. Under this sub-section, as soon as the
parties have arrived at a compromise, the Magistrate has nothing more to
do except to record a judgment of acquittal. And if one of the parties
subsequently resides from the composition, it is competent to the Court
to take evidence as to the factum of the composition and to give effect to
it, if it is found to have been entered into. Where the parties to a
compoundable offence compound it and produce a writing signed by
them before the Court, the Court is bound to act upon it and is not at
liberty to call upon the parties to prove that the case has been
compounded. Unless a compromise duly verified by the parties is
brought on record, it is not noticeable by the Court. It is incompetent for
any person, once having entered into a valid composition, to Withdraw
from it. A breach of the terms of the composition agreement may give
rise to other remedies, but there can be no withdrawal.

Offences compoundable with Court permission [Sub-section (2)].—

In cases governed by this sub-section, the Magistrate has to perform the
judicial act of deciding whether, in the interest of justice, the parties
should be allowed to compromise and, unless and until the Court has
given its sanction, the so-called compromise arrived at between the
parties outside the Court is of no legal effect and cannot be taken
cognizance of by any court dealing with the offence.

Compounding on behalf of incompetent person [Sub-section (4)].—

This sub-section permits composition of offences falling both under sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2) by competent persons in cases of minors,
lunatics or idiots with the Court's permission. Similarly, legal
representatives are permitted to make composition in case of death of the
person mentioned in col. 3 with the permission of the Court.

Compounding at committal or appellate stage [Sub-section (5)].—

An offence which is compoundable may, with the leave of the Court in
which it is pending for trial or on appeal, be compounded. When an
appeal or revision is pending, the appellate Court alone can allow the
offence to be compounded.

Compounding with permission of Court exercising power of review

[Sub-section (6)].—
The High Court may allow the parties to a criminal case to compromise
their disputes, even when such compromise is effected after the date of
the final disposal of the case by the inferior court competent to try it. It
is not competent for the High Court to allow a compromise to be
recorded unless the aggrieved person is actually before the High Court
and has expressly recorded his consent to a compromise being recorded.
The High Court will not ordinarily allow the compromise of an offence
to be recorded under this sub-section unless some attempt towards
compounding the offence was made before the trial Court passed orders
in the case.

No compounding where enhanced punishment because of previous

Offences [Sub-section (7)].—
This sub-section prohibits compounding in cases where, on account of a
previous conviction, the accused is liable to an enhanced punishment or
to a punishment of a different kind.

Compounding to have effect of acquittal [Sub-section (8)].—

If an offence has been committed against two different persons, the
accused cannot be acquitted if he compounds with only one of them.

Consent for compounding.—

Case Law: - Parameswari v Vennila, (2000) 10 SCC 348
Where the consent given by the victimized wife appeared to be free and
genuine. The compromise filed by the parties also seemed to be
reasonable and in the interest of the wife. The wife being an educated
person, it was held that it was a fit case for grant of permission for
compounding of the offence of bigamy.
Other offences not compoundable [Sub-section (9)].—
According to the scheme of this sub section, all the offences under the
special or local laws are simply non compoundable, and it is left to the
legislature to decide as a matter of policy whether and to what extent
offences under such laws should be compoundable. Briefly speaking,
offences other than those specified in sub section (1) and (2) cannot be
compounded.
An interesting fact relevant here is the attitude of the High Courts in
permitting compounding of offence under S498-A IPC. In the interest of
peace in the family and in the public interest some courts permitted
compounding of such offences, while other refused to follow suit on the
grounds that they do not have powers.

Section 321: - Withdrawal from prosecution –

Withdrawal by whom
As per Section 321, just the public prosecutor or the associate public
prosecutor who is responsible for a specific case can apply for
withdrawal from prosecution in a separate case. It is the obligation of the
particular court, where the withdrawal application has been documented,
to examine the explanations for the withdrawal and watch that
withdrawal isn’t looked on reasons superfluous or against the
enthusiasm of equity. Moreover, it is the obligation of the court to see
that the public prosecutor really applies their free mind and not simply
go about as insignificant mechanical operators of the State government.
Withdrawal from prosecution of whom and in respect of which offence
Withdrawal from the prosecution of any individual either by and large or
in regard of any at least one of the offences for which he is tried. Given
that where such offence-
1. Was against any law identifying with an issue to which the official
power of the Union broadens, or
2. Was explored by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, or
3. Included the misappropriation or decimation of, or harm to, any
property related with the Central Government, or
4. Was submitted by an individual in the administration of the Central
Government while acting or implying to act in the release of his
official obligation, furthermore, the examiner accountable for the
case has not been designated by the Central Government he will
not, except if he has been allowed by the Central Government to
do as such, move the Court for its consent to pull back from the
prosecution and the Court will, before concurring assent, direct the
prosecutor to create before it the authorization allowed by the
Central Government to pull back from the prosecution.
Up to what stage of trail withdrawal is possible
Application for withdrawal from prosecution might be made at any time
before the judgment is articulated. So the Public Prosecutor may record
an application for withdrawal from prosecution whenever running
between the Court taking cognizance of the case till such time the Court
and things considered articulates the judgment.

Conditions precedent for withdrawal

Conditions precedent for withdrawal are as such;
1. If it is made, before a charge has been encircled, blamed or
accused will be released in regard to such offence or offences;
2. On the off chance that it is made after a charge has been encircled,
or when under this Code no charge is required he will be absolved
in regard of such offence or offences.

Discretion of Public Prosecutor and of court in the matter of

withdrawal
Discretion of Public Prosecutor
M.N. Sankarayarayanan Nair v P.V. Balakrishnan, the Supreme Court
attempted to diagram the rule with respect to which the public
prosecutor can practice their circumspection. The court saw that the
carefulness is guided by the implicit necessity that the withdrawal ought
to be in light of a legitimate concern for the organization of equity. Such
may incorporate that prosecution can’t gather enough proof to continue
charges on denounced or accused, or that withdrawal is essential for
controlling lawful circumstances, or for the upkeep of open harmony and
serenity and so on.
Discretion of court
In any summons case founded generally than upon grievance, a judge of
the top of the line or a first-class judge, or some other legal officer with
the past approval/ sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, may stop the
procedure at any stage without articulating any judgment.

Discretion of court in according consent

The Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar Jain v. State held that the
articulation of judgment is sufficiently wide to remember for its domain
of both the courts-Court of Committing Magistrate and that of Court of
Session. In this manner, both the courts have the power to hear the
application of withdrawal from prosecution from the public prosecutor.
Section 321 doesn’t give any rules to be trailed by the court in deciding
whether to offer consent to the withdrawal application or not. In this
way, the court truly has liberated caution as respects to offering consent
to the application for withdrawal from indictment or prosecution
documented by the prosecutor accountable for case. Be that as it may,
the Supreme Court has figured through different decisions, core values
to be trailed by courts in offering consent to withdrawal application.
Consequences of withdrawal from prosecution
Different court decisions, including from the Supreme Court, have held
that considerably after a case has been pulled back by a state
government and got the assent of the court concerned, it very well may
be tested for a legal audit under Article 226 of the Constitution. Courts
have additionally held that other than the person in question, even an
outsider can mediate and challenge the withdrawal of the case since
wrongdoing is submitted against the general public. Courts have held
that each individual from the general public has the locus standi to
contradict or challenge withdrawal in a criminal case, especially if there
should arise an occurrence of debasement and criminal rupture of trust
or cheating.