CrPC Section 320 - Compounding Of Offences

A Trial is not always necessary to settle issues between the accused and the victim; instead, certain conflicts may be settled peacefully. This is made possible by CrPC Section 320, which controls the compounding of crimes in India. In essence, compounding an offence allows the victim to resolve the issue, frequently with a monetary payment or other conditions that are mutually agreed upon, thus mending the rift between the parties. This process, which is a part of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, aims to promote harmonious relations, which is important in a varied country like India and makes it easier to resolve less serious violations. The process, however, is strictly controlled to make sure that it doesn't compromise justice or public policy, especially when crime has wider societal repercussions. Scroll through the article to learn more about the concept of Section 320 CrPC.

What Is Compounding Of Offences?

"To settle a matter by a money payment, in lieu of other liability" is what it means to compound in general English language sense. According to criminal law, the victim may intensify the offence. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contains legal guidelines for the compounding of offences under Section 320. In order to restore peace, Section 320 of the Code aims to foster cordial relations between the parties. Under common law, compounding a felony was regarded as a misdemeanour. In many states, the offence is punishable by law as a felony. Compounding misdemeanours is lawful. However, because it goes against public policy, a promise not to pursue a misdemeanour is unenforceable. According to this theory, compounding is illegal in almost every state in the union. Compounding offences can be prosecuted as statutory offences in 45 states and as common law offences in two states. In the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and England and Wales, compounding is prohibited.

What Are Compoundable Offences?

Offences that are amenable to settlement via mutual consent are known as compoundable offences. In some situations, the complaint consents to withdraw the accusations against the defendant, resolving the conflict without a formal trial. These crimes are distinct from those that are not compoundable, which are more serious in nature and do not permit these kinds of settlements. The offences included in Section 320 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are those that are compoundable. For certain offences, the victim (also known as the complainant) chooses not to press charges against the person who is being held accountable for the misconduct. A crime must meet specific requirements in order to qualify as a compoundable offence:

• A compoundable crime cannot have an exceptionally high degree of severity.
• Most offences that are compoundable are private in nature. Private offences have a detrimental effect on a person's identity or personal rights. These offences must not be detrimental to the welfare of the state or the broader public.
• Since crimes like rape, murder, and dacoity are so heinous, a compromise cannot be reached to address them.

Section 320 Explained

Two types of crimes are listed in Section 320 of the CrPC that may be resolved at the victim's discretion. In the first category, the crime can be settled without the need for judicial permission. For any crime in the second category, a compromise cannot be reached without the consent of the court.

Section 320 (1): Offences Not Requiring Court Approval

The Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320(1), permits the resolution of offences without the consent of the court. The persons mentioned in the third column of that table may resolve these offences under certain articles of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 320 (2): Offences Needing Court Approval

The Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320(2), permits the settlement of crimes that need permission from the court. Certain people named in the third column of the table may settle certain charges under specific articles of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 320 (3): Compoundable Offences And Their Extension

According to this clause, assisting, abetting, attempting the commission of, or participating in a crime that is classified as compoundable under Section 34 or Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code creates a new offence that is likewise susceptible to compromise. To put it another way, if someone tries to commit or aids in the commission of a compoundable offence, such attempt or assistance may also be settled by mutual consent. This is only relevant to situations when offences are initiated, attempted, and committed.

Section 320(4): Assistance And Compounding Permissions

This chapter deals with situations in which the victims are deceased or are minors or mentally ill. This section gives a guardian the authority to handle legal matters on behalf of a victim who is mentally ill or under the age of 18. In order to handle a crime affecting a kid, the guardian must involve the court. Furthermore, a deceased person's legal representative may, upon previous court consent, negotiate a compromise on that person's behalf, as established by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

Section 320(5): Limitations On Compounding During Trial And Appeals

According to this clause, it is not possible to compound an offence without a court's approval while the accused is being tried for a compoundable offence or if the accused has already been found guilty and an appeal is pending. This is applicable to both class 1 and class 2 offences, irrespective of whether the offence is covered by Section 320(1) or (2).

Section 320(6): Authorisation For Compounding Through Legal Channels

The Sessions Court may compound offences under Section 399 of the CrPC, and the High Court may do so under Section 401 of the CrPC, if the individual requesting authority is qualified. The CrPC specifies the High Court's and Sessions Court's revisionary powers under Sections 401 and 399, respectively.

Section 320(7): Limitations On Combining Previous Convictions With Compounding

This clause emphasises that if an accused person is facing additional or different penalties as a result of a prior conviction, the crime cannot be compounded.

Section 320(8): Effect Of Compounding Of Offences

As per the requirements of Section 320(8) of the CrPC, an accused person who commits an offence in accordance with Section 320 is deemed to have been successfully acquitted of the offence. The accusations filed against the accused are dismissed if the offence is compounded. Compounding has the same impact regardless of when the First Information Report (FIR) was filed or when the trial has already started. The accused is exonerated of all charges provided the offence was resolved with the court's permission.

Section 320(9): Requirements For Compilation

According to Section 320(9), a crime cannot be considered compounded unless a number of requirements are met. Furthermore, the Gurcharan Singh Bhawani v. State (2002) decision established that Section 482 cannot be used to prosecute acts that are not punished by a fine under Section 320(9).

Differences Between Compoundable And Non-Compoundable Offences

The following are the differences between compoundable and non-compoundable offences:

• Nature of Crime: Compoundable offences are generally less serious than non-compoundable offences.
• Withdrawal of Charges: Charges in compoundable offences can be withdrawn; in non-compoundable offences, they cannot.
• Affected Parties: Compoundable offences typically affect private individuals, while non-compoundable offences impact both individuals and society.
• Compounding: Compoundable offences can be settled with or without court permission, whereas non-compoundable offences cannot be settled.
• Filing of the Case: Compoundable offence cases are usually filed by private persons; non-compoundable offence cases are filed by the state.
• Ability to Compromise: Compoundable offences can be settled out of court, while non-compoundable offences must be tried by a court.
• Role of the Victim: The victim can agree to settle in compoundable offences; in non-compoundable offences, the state prosecutes without the victim's consent.
• Nature of Offence: Compoundable offences are generally less serious, while non-compoundable offences are more serious.
• Seriousness: Compoundable offences are considered less serious, affecting individuals rather than the public, while non-compoundable offences are more serious, affecting society.
• Legal Proceedings: Compoundable offences may not require a full trial and can be settled by mutual agreement; non-compoundable offences require a full judicial process.
• Permission Required: Some compoundable offences require court permission to settle; non-compoundable offences have no provision for out-of-court settlement.
• Examples: Compoundable offences include defamation and simple hurt, while non-compoundable offences include murder, rape, and kidnapping.

Key Aspects

Following are some of the important aspects of the Section 320 CrPC:

• Mutual Agreement: The accused and the victim freely decide to reach a settlement in order to end the conflict or offence. The parameters of the agreement might include anything from restitution to payment of compensation, or it could include any additional criteria that the parties decide upon.
• Consent: Both the accused and the victim must provide their consent for the procedure to proceed. It is essential that both parties voluntarily accept the settlement and are aware of its ramifications.
• Legal Process: This usually entails the court becoming involved. Depending on the type and seriousness of the offence, the court might have to give authorisation or supervise the procedure. The settlement's fairness and legality are guaranteed by the court.
• Consequences: When a crime is resolved, the accused is cleared and the criminal case against them is closed. The parties are bound by the terms of the agreement and the settlement they achieve is regarded as final.

Decriminalisation

The decriminalisation concept also applies to compounding offences as they absolve the accused of all accusations. It's possible that the offending person reimbursed the complaint, or that the parties' perceptions of one another have entirely altered. Criminal law has to be modified in order to identify certain circumstances and offer a mechanism for putting a stop to criminal investigations for specific kinds of offences. That's the rationale behind compounding crimes. It's possible that the perpetrator made amends with the victim or that the parties' opinions of one another improved. Legislators regularly have to decide whether offences should be treated as compoundable offences.

Several viewpoints have been examined, the advantages and disadvantages have been assessed, and a logical and sensible decision has been taken. Compromising crimes that endanger state security or have a major effect on the community is generally prohibited. Compounding is not an option for horrible crimes, however. Once the offence is compounded, the court no longer has jurisdiction over the case and the perpetrator is deemed innocent.

Additional Laws

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

The Lok Adalat is authorised to mediate and reach a settlement or compromise between the disputing parties about any subject relating to a crime that can be settled under any legal act, as per Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999

Any violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999's rules, laws, orders, notices, or directives is considered a violation of the Act. Complementing such infractions is willingly confessing to the infraction, accepting responsibility, and requesting compensation. Any infraction specified in Section 13 of the FEMA Act may be compounded by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

Companies Act, 2013

If an infraction is committed or a rule, regulation, or obligation is broken, directors may choose to request that the offence be compounded rather than filing a lawsuit under the Companies Act of 2013, provided that the violation is compoundable. The Companies Act of 2013 addresses the compounding of offences under Section 441. According to Section 441(1), an infraction that carries a fine-only penalty may be compounded.

The Income Tax Act, 1961

The body that has the power to compound an infraction will be referred to as having "competent authority." Any Act-related violation may be compounded at any time, including before and after legal action is taken, in accordance with Section 279(2).

Landmark Judgements

Following are some of the landmark judgements of CrPC Section 320:

Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa (1999)

A three-judge Supreme Court bench underlined in the Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa case that Section 320 of the CrPC, 1973 offers a thorough framework for compounding crimes mentioned under the IPC. According to Section 320(1), the people named in the third column of the table may be used to resolve offences indicated in it.

Comparably, with the approval of the court, Section 320(2) allows the complainant to resolve the offences specified in the table. However, as stated clearly in Section 320(9), "no offence shall be compounded except as provided by Section 320 of the CrPC." This legislative provision states that only the crimes specified in Section 320(1) and (2) may be resolved; other IPC offences are not subject to compounding.

Mahalovya Gauba v. State Of Punjab And Another (2021)

The Mahalovya Gauba v. State of Punjab and Another decision determined that criminal cases pertaining to compoundable offences fall into two types:

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.

Under Section 320(1), Lok Adalat is authorised to handle compoundable criminal matters that fall into one of these two categories: those that can be resolved without the agreement of the court, or those that do (Section 320(2)).

Although Section 320(2) of the CrPC seems to imply that compounding can only happen after filing a case under Section 173(2) of the CrPC and not before, Section 320(1) of the CrPC does not specifically say as much. It is unclear if compoundable criminal cases can be resolved at the investigation stage prior to the filing of a case file in accordance with Section 173(2) of the CrPC.

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

A three-judge panel led by G. K. Mitter came to the conclusion in Biswabahan Das v. Gopen Chandra Hasarika & Ors. that compounding may be a suitable settlement for a crime that affects the complainant personally.

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

In this instance, the defendants were charged with charges that were not subject to compounding. But after reaching a peaceful resolution to their differences, the parties requested that the High Court dismiss the case. The matter was brought to the Supreme Court, where the decision was reversed and the lawsuit was dismissed, although the Court declined to do so. The Apex Court argues that the High Court has some inherent authority under Section 482 to further the interests of justice. In order to protect the law, the High Court may use Section 482 to quash the case even if the offence isn't compoundable in particular situations. Section 320 cannot impede the administration of justice. Allowing a compromise between the parties in the event of non-compoundable offences is much more precise and is based on the specifics of each case.

Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (2008)

The ruling in the B.S. Joshi case was upheld in this instance. In this instance, the culprit was charged with both non-compoundable and compoundable charges. But the parties had come to an agreement and wanted the criminal case against the defendant to be dropped before the charge sheet was filed. After the High Court declined to halt the criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court reversed them. The Supreme Court held that the technicalities provided by Section 320 about the timing of a party's ability to apply for the quashing of proceedings and their ability to negotiate a settlement do not allow the interests of justice to be ignored. There is no use in continuing the criminal procedures when the parties have already reached an agreement, the validity of which has been formally verified by the court.