Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

A project file submitted to

Rayat college of law

In partial fulfillment of the requirement of course

B.Com LLb (Hons). For Semester six

Subject : Compounding of Offences

Under the supervision of :- Submitted by :-

Dr. Sonu saini Devansh Modgil
professor in law Bcom LLB (hons)
Rayat college of law 6th semester
Railmajra roll no 17657

Page 1
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The feeling of acknowledge and expressing it in words are two things apart. It is weakness,
but I honestly admit when I truly wish to express my warm gratitude and indebtedness
towards somebody, I am always at loss of words.

The project could not have completed without support extended to me by Dr Akash singh , he
guided me during the preparation of the project and every time when I reached out for him
with my difficulties, he welcomed them which helped me to successfully complete the
project. I express my heartfelt gratitude with great pleasure and a sense of obligation to Ms.
Manpreet, for his timely support and supervision.

I would also like to thank Dr. Mahender Singh, my Vice Principal. He was always there with
his support and those wonderful insights whenever they were eagerly needed.

I would also like to thank Dr. Monika Sharma honorable Principal of my college whose
continued cooperation and support in making this project a success.

And, finally a word of gratitude to my family and friends who were always there with their
support and encouragement.

Regards
Devansh Modgil

Page 2
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

S.no Content Page no.

Page 3
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

Introduction

To escape from the tedious and costly process of court proceedings, parties
choose to mutually settle disputes between them, outside the court. The cases
can be of civil or criminal nature. However, the cases involving serious issues
cannot skip the court proceedings and mutual settlement is not accepted. The
settlement depends on the nature of the offence; whether it is compoundable or
non-compoundable. The compoundable cases are listed under Section 320 of
the Criminal Procedure Code and matters not listed under this are non-
compoundable offences. Such Offences cannot be settled mutually because
mere monetary relief does not heal the suffering of the victim’s mind and body.
However, courts have discretion on the issue concerning non-compoundable
offences.

This article discusses what offences come under the headings of

‘compoundable’ and ‘non-compoundable, how the two are distinguished and the
differences between such offences. Lastly, the mutual settlement in non-
compoundable cases has been discussed in light of Supreme Court judgements

Compoundable and non-compoundable offences

Compoundable offences
In compoundable offences, parties to the dispute may enter into a compromise
or settlement where the accused person provides an amount in the form of
consideration to the aggrieved person. A court may dispose of the case, as the
case is settled between the parties. The compoundable offences are given in
Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These offences are less serious
and settled only in good faith. Compoundable offences fall into two broad
categories:

1 Where the permission of the court is not required 

 Some offences such as trespass, adultery, defamation, etc. do not require

the court’s permission to be compounded.

Page 4
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

2.Where the permission of the court required 

Offences of a more serious nature such as theft, assault and criminal breach of
trust require the court’s permission to be settled. 

Parties ready to compound shall request the application of compounding in the

same court where trials were previously held for the case. The accused shall be
considered acquitted if compounding of the charge takes place in the same way
as the accused would have been acquitted in a trial by court.

Non-compoundable offences

The offences under non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded, but

have to go through the whole trial to be quashed. These offences are of a more
serious and grievous nature, which affect society as a whole and not just an
individual. The reason to not allow such offences to be compounded is that it
would set a bad example in society to get away with serious offences. Non-
compoundable offences are against the public policy and thus settlement is not
allowed by a regular court to such offences. The list of offences under this is
non-exhaustive, as the offences which are not given in Section 320 of the
Criminal Procedure Code are considered to be non-compoundable offences.
Such offences usually include voluntarily causing grievous hurt, hurt by
dangerous weapon, dishonest misappropriation, kidnapping or abducting to
murder, etc.

Differences
Compoundable Offences  Non-Compoundable Offences 

Nature of these types of offences are less

Nature of these types of offences is more grave.
serious 

These offences only impact a private These offences may impact a private person as
person’s rights. well as the society at large. 

Page 5
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

These offences are mentioned in Section These offences are those which are not mentioned
320 of CrPC. in Section 320 of CrPC.

Compromise is allowed with or without No compromise is allowed even on permission

the permission of the court. from the court.

Full trials are not continued on

Full trials are to be held with a judgement.
compromise

Cases are generally filed by a private

Cases are generally filed by the state.
person.

Example-With Permission- theft,

criminal breach of trust, grievous hurt,
Example- Voluntary hurt by dangerous weapons,
dishonest misappropriation, etc.
wrongful confinement for 3 days or more,
counterfeiting trade or property, etc.
Without Permission- adultery, causing
hurt, defamation, criminal trespass, etc.

Difference between the powers granted in

Section 320 and Section 482
Section 320 of the CrPC provides the list of offences that are eligible to be
compounded by the court. Section 482 confers powers on the High Court to
make any order which it deems necessary to:

1. give effect to the orders under CrPC;

2. prevent abuse of the process of any court, or
3. otherwise to secure ends of justice

The Supreme Court asked High Courts to refrain from quashing criminal proceedings which
are of heinous or serious nature, or where the interest of the public is involved, in the case of
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012). Whereas in cases when the offence is civil, where the
wrong is personal, and the matter is resolved between the parties consensually, the
proceedings can be quashed by HC. However, the High Court can quash criminal
proceedings where the conviction is not possible and the parties are ready to settle the case
amongst themselves even if the offence did not fall under compoundable offences.

Page 6
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

The difference between Section 482 and Section 320 is the power exercised
under Section 320, which enlists that compoundable offences can be executed
straight away, without specific permissions required. But power exercised under
Section 482 to quash any criminal offences, which are not in the list of
compoundable offences, shall be used cautiously with due care that is
administered with proper scrutiny. The judges of courts have a meticulous job
to check on all the necessary parameters and strike a balance between which
matters are of interest to be compounded or not. 

Supreme Court on the compounding of non-

compoundable offences

When the crime is civil, the harm done affects only the individual and thereby
invites damages only on him. But when the crime is criminal, its effect is not
limited to an individual, but on the society as a whole, and the offender must be
punished to instil a sense of fear. This is the reason why most offences in criminal
cases are non-compoundable. The criminal offences which can be compounded are
only those which are of less significance to society and less serious.

The Supreme Court has been cautious to declare which cases of criminal nature
are to be of compoundable nature and laid down proper guidelines to quash
criminal offences by the High Court. The Supreme Court had laid down in the
case of Rameshchandra J, Thakkar vs. A.P. Jhaveri (1972) that if an offender
is acquitted based on compounding and it turns out that the compounding done
was invalid, such acquittal can be overturned by the High Court by using its
revisionary power. Furthermore, if a non-compoundable offender is acquitted
on an invalid basis, such acquittal can be overturned by the High Court.
Following case laws will clarify the criminal cases to be framed as
compoundable.

Page 7
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

Case Laws

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)

In the case of Gian Singh, the Supreme Court held that High Courts shall not
quash the criminal cases of serious and heinous nature, or in connection with
public concerns. This ruling is applicable in all criminal cases, except in the
case where conviction in the criminal offence is rarely possible and longing of
the case would be detrimental for justice of the accused. The offences of the
private nature arising out of family dispute or matrimony such as dowry, etc can
be settled by the power of the High court under Section 482.

Mahesh Chand v. the State of Rajasthan (1988)

In the Mahesh Chand case, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the
Constitution to give complete justice to the parties. This article permitted the
Supreme Court to compound non-compoundable offences. This power was to
be exclusively used in the case of an attempt to suicide under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) to compound the offence in this case.

Ram Lal v. the State of Jammu & Kashmir (1999)

The Ram Lal case altered the judgement given in the Mahesh Chand case. The
provisions given under Section 320(9), which lists out compoundable offences,
cannot be ignored. The offences declared by law as non-compoundable cannot
be compounded, even with the permission of the court.

B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003)

In the B.S. Joshi case the Supreme court was faced with the question of whether
High Courts possess the power to quash an order involving non-compoundable
offences under Section 482 of the CrPC. It was held that to achieve justice to

Page 8
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

the parties of the case, the High Courts have the power to use its jurisdiction to
quash a case involving Section 482, even if the case was non-compoundable.

State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat (2013)

In the case of Shambhu Kewat, the Supreme Court observed that the powers of
courts to compound offences of criminal nature-related matters given under
Article 320 of the CrPC. The scope of the High Court to observe material facts
and form opinions shall be according to Article 482, to meet the ends of justice
whose ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of the indictment. In
this case, the Supreme Court cleared the source to be referred to for acquittal by
compounding to the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Compounding offences under various laws

1. Compounding Offences under Foreign Exchange Management Act

(FEMA), 1999: Contravention under the FEMA Act refers to a violation of any
of the rules, regulations, orders, notifications, or directions issued under the Act.
Compounding such contraventions means willingly admitting to the
contravention, pleading guilty for them, and seeking redressal. The Reserve
Bank of India (RBI) is authorized to compound any contravention as defined
under Section 13 of the Act. This is a voluntary process undertaken by an
individual or corporate to seek the compounding of contravention. The added
benefits of compounding of contraventions under FEMA include: (i) avoiding
litigation, (ii) non-initiation of further proceedings, and (iii) reducing the burden
of the judiciary.

2. Compounding of offence under Direct Tax Laws: The Chief

Commissioner of Income Tax or Director General of Income Tax may
compound any offense under Chapter XXII either before or after the
proceedings have been instituted as per Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Offences under Chapter XXII are classified into Category A and B for the
purpose of compounding. Compounding an offence is not a matter of right. Any
competent authority may compound an offence when conditions, as prescribed
in the Guidelines, have been satisfied.

Page 9
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

3. Compounding of offence under Companies Act, 2013: When an offence

has been committed under the Companies Act, 2013, or a provision has been
violated, or default or delay has occurred, instead of permitting the initiation of
proceedings, the directors may apply to get the offence compounded if the
offence is a compoundable one. Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals
with the compounding of offences. According to Section 441(1), an offence
punishable with a fine only shall be compoundable. However, it shall not be
compounded if the investigation into such offence has commenced. Any offence
punishable with imprisonment only or imprisonment and fine shall not be
compounded.

List of Compoundable Offences

Person by whom
Section of
Type of Offence offence may be
IPC
compounded
Uttering words, etc., with deliberate Intent The person whose
298 IPC to wound the religious feelings of any religious feelings are
person. intended to be wounded.
The person to whom the
323 IPC Causing hurt.
hurt is caused.
The person to whom the
334 IPC Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation.
hurt is caused.
341, 342,
Wrongfully restraining or confining any The person restrained or
343, 344,
person. confined.
346 IPC
The person assaulted or
352, 355,
Assault or use of criminal force. to whom criminal force
358 IPC
is used.
Mischief, when the only loss or damage The person to whom the
426, 427
caused is loss or damage to a private loss or damage is
IPC
person. caused.
The person in possession of
447 IPC Criminal trespass. the property trespassed
upon.

Page 10
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

The person in
possession of the
448 IPC House trespass.
property trespassed
upon.
The person with whom
491 IPC Criminal breach of contract of service. the offender has
contracted.
The husband of the
497 IPC Adultery.
woman.
Enticing or taking away or detaining with The husband of the
498 IPC
criminal intent of a married woman. woman.
Defamation. except such eases as are
specified against section 500 of the Indian
500 IPC The person defamed.
Penal Code (45 of 1860) in column I of the
Table under sub?section (2)
Printing or engraving matter, knowing it to
501 IPC The person defamed.
be defamatory.
Sale of printed or engraved substance
502 IPC containing defamatory matter, knowing it The person defamed.
to contain such matter.
Insult intended to provoke a breach of the
504 IPC The person insulted.
peace.
Criminal intimidation except when the
506 IPC offence is punishable with Imprisonment The person intimidated.
for seven years.
Act caused by making a person believe The person against
508 IPC that he will be an object of divine whom the offence was
displeasure. committed

Page 11
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on

6 November, 1978

The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and centre round an alleged
conspiracy said to have been entered into between respondents No. 1 and 2 in
order to commit offences under sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with section 120-
B I.P.C.

The main charge against the respondents was that between 19-2-1972 to 30-3-
1972 the respondent entered into an agreement For the purpose of obtaining
pecuniary advantage for respondent No. 1 P. K. Samal and in pursuance of the
said conspiracy the second respondent Debi Prasad Jena, who was the Land
Acquisition officer aided and abetted the first respondent in getting a huge sum
of money for a land acquired by the Government which in fact belonged to the
Government itself and respondent No. 1 was a skew thereof.

It is averred in the chargesheet that respondent No. 1 by abusing his official

position concealed the fact that the land which was the subject matter of
acquisition and was situated in Cuttack Cantonment was really Khasmahal land
belonging to the Government and having made it appear that he was the
undisputed owner of the same, got a compensation of Rs. 4,18,642.55. The
charge-sheet contains a number of circumstances from which the inference of
the conspiracy is sought to be drawn by the police.

After the charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, the prosecution
ousted him to frame a charge against the respondents. The Special Judge, Puri
after having gone through the charge-sheet and statements made by the
witnesses before the police as also other documents came to the conclusion that
there was no sufficient ground for framing a charge against the respondents and
he accordingly discharged them under section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called the Code).

Page 12
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

The Special Judge has given cogent reasons for passing the order of discharge.
The appellant went up to the High Court in revision against the order of the
Special Judge refusing to frame the charge, but the High Court dismissed the
revision petition filed by the appellant and maintained the order of discharge
passed by the Special Judge. Thereafter the appellant moved this Court by ar,
application for special leave which having been granted to the appellant, the
appeal is now set for hearing before us.

The short point which arises for determination in this case is the scope and
ambit of an order of discharge to be passed by a Special Judge
under section 227 of the Code. The appeal does not raise any new question of
law and there have been several authorities of the High Courts as also of this
Court on the various aspects and grounds on which an accused person can be
discharged, but as section 227 of the Code is a new section and at the time
when the application for special leave was filed, there was no direct decision of
this Court on the interpretation of section 227 of the Code, the matter was
thought fit to be given due consideration by this Court.

Before interpreting and analysing the provisions of section 227 of the Code so

far as pure sessions trials are concerned, two important facts may be mentioned.
In the first place, the Code has introduced substantial and far reaching changes
in the Code of 1898 as amended in 1955 in order to cut out delays and simplify
the procedure, has dispersed with the procedure for commitment enquiries
referred to m section 206 to 213 of the Code, of 1898 and has made
commitment more or less a legal formality. Under the previous Code of 1898
the Magistrate was enjoined to take evidence of the prosecution witnesses after
giving opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses 2nd was then
required to hear the parties and to commit the acceded to the Court of Session
unless he chose to act under section 209 and found that there was no sufficient
ground for committing the accused person for trial. Under the Code the
Committing Magistrate has been authorised to peruse the evidence and the
documents produced by the police and commit the case straightaway to the
Sessions Court if the case is one which is exclusively triable by the Sessions
Court. Thus, it would appear that the legislature while dispensing with the
procedure for commitment enquiry under the Code of 1898 has conferred a dual
responsibility on the Trial Judge who has first to examine the case on the basis

Page 13
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

of the statement of witnesses recorded by the police and the documents filed
with a view to find out whether a prima facie case for trial has been made out
and then if such a case is made out to proceed to try the same. In our view the
legislature has adopted this course in order to avoid frivolous prosecutions and
prevent the accused from being tried of an offence on materials which do not
furnish a reasonable probability of conviction. In the instant case, as the
offences alleged to have been committed by the respondents fall within the
provisions of the Act, the Special Judge has been substituted for the Sessions
Judge, the procedure of the Sessions Court having been applied fully to the trial
of such cases. Thus, it is manifest that the accused has not only one opportunity
and that too before the Sessions Judge for showing that no case for trial had
been made out. This was obviously done to expedite the disposal of the criminal
cases.

Section 227 of the Code runs thus:-

"If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution
in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing."
The words 'not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' clearly
show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of
the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not A necessary for the court to enter
into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of
evidence and probabilities which is really his function after the trial starts. At
the stage of section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to
find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the
evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court
which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the
accused so as to frame a charge against him.

Page 14