Holding

An offence declared non‑compoundable by law cannot be compounded even with the court's permission, as mandated by Section 320(9) of the CrPC.

Summary

The appeal involved two convicted persons: the first under Section 326 of the IPC (a non‑compoundable offence) and the second under Section 324 IPC (compoundable with court permission). Both parties sought to compound the offences after reaching a settlement. The Supreme Court held that Section 320(9) of the CrPC bars compounding of any offence not listed in the two tables, thus a non‑compoundable offence like Section 326 cannot be compounded even with the court's permission, overruling earlier decisions deemed per incuriam. Consequently, the request to compound the Section 326 offence was denied, but the court reduced the first appellant's sentence to the time already served and ordered his release. The request to compound the Section 324 offence was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the second appellant was acquitted.

Issues considered

Whether a non‑compoundable offence under Section 326 IPC can be compounded with the permission of the court.
Interpretation of Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to compounding offences.
Whether earlier judgments permitting compounding of non‑compoundable offences are binding.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320, s. 320(8), s. 320(9)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 324, s. 326

Subjects

compounding of offencesnon‑compoundable offenceSection 326 IPCSection 324 IPCCrPC Section 320per incuriamsettlementsentence reductionacquittal

Judgment

·~ '

A RAM LAL AND ANR. ...y
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JANUARY 25, 1999

B (K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]
.....
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 320
;

, Compounding of offences-Pem1issibi/ity of-Only such offences can
be compounded as are included in two tables of Section 32o--None else can
c be compounded.

, Section 326 /PC-Offence undel'-lfeld non-compoundable-An of
fence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the pemiission
·of the Court cannot be compounded at all-Request of accused to compound
D offence under Section 326 rejected-But sentence reduced to period of im-
prisonment already undergone.

Section 324 /PC-Offence under-Compounding of-Joint applicati011
filed by legal representatives of complainant and accused-Pem1ission granted
by court and conviction and sentence of accused set aside.
E
Y. Suresh Babu v. State of AP & Anr., (1987) 2 JT 361 and Mahesll
Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, [1990) SCC (Suppl.) 681, held per
incuriarn.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
F 70of1999.
,,.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.98 of the Jammu & Kashmir
High Court in Crl. F.A. No. 10 of 1982.

D.D. Thakur and Rajeev Sharma for the Appellant.
G
M.C. Dhingra, (NP) (G.M. Kawoosa) for Ashok Mathur forJhe
Respondent/Complainant/ For State..
. >I ,, ../

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H Leave granted.
230
RAM LAL v. STATE 231

The first appellant Ram Lal stands convicted of the offence under A
Section 326 of the IPC and is undergoing a sentence of three years. The
second appellant has been convicted of Section 324 of the IPC and was
sentenced to imprisonment for two years. The parties have compromised
and a petition for compounding has been filed. We cannot accede to the
request for compounding in regard to the offence under Section 326 IPC
as the same is a non- compoundable offence. Sri D.D. Thakur, learned
B
Senior Counsel invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Y.
Suresh Babu v. State of AP and another, (1987) 2 JT 361 and Mahesh Chand
and another v. State of Rajasthan, [1990] SCC Suppl. 681, wherein non-com-
poundable offences were allowed to be compounded. In Y. Suresli Babu
(supra) it was specifically observed that the said case "shall not be treated c
as a precedent." In the latter case (Mahesh Chand) offence under
Section 307 IPC was permitted to be compounded with the following
observations :
.
~·-
"We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea
put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After D
examining the nature of the case and circumstances under which
the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial court
shall permit them to compound the offence."

We are unable to follow the said decisioµ as a binding precedent. E
Section 320 which deals with "compounding of offences" provides two
Tables therein, one containing descriptions of offences which can be
compounded by the person mentioned in it, and the other containing
descriptions of offences which can be compounded with the permission of
the Court by the persons indicated therein. Only such offences as are
included in the said two Tables cari be compounded and none else. F
Sub-Section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
imposes a legislative ban in the following terms :

"(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this
section."
G
It is apparent that when the decision in Mahesh Chand (supra) was
rendered attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid
legal prohibition. Nor was attention of the learned Judges who rendered
the decision in Y. Suresh Babu (supra) drawn. Hence those were decision
rendered per incuriam. We hold that an offence which law declares to be H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.

A non-compoundable even with the permission of the Court cannot be com-
pounded at all. The offence under Section 326 IPC is, admittedly, non-com-
poundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned
counsel to permit the same to be compounded.
'
However, considering the fact that parties have come to a settlement
B and the victims have no grievance now and considering the further fact that
first appellant has already undergone a period of imprisonment of about
six months, a lenient view can be taken and the sentence can be reduced
to the period which he had already undergone. We order so and direct the
jail authorities to set him at liberty forthwith.
c Regarding the second appellant we permit the parties to compound
the offence {section 324 IPC) in view of the joint application filed by the
legal representatives of the deceased complainant and the second appellant
(vide his application No. Crl. M.P. No. 7648/98). In view of the aforesaid
compounding of the offence under Section 324 of IPC we set aside the
D conviction and sentence passed on the second appellant and he is acquitted
under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.

. ·~

•