COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES BY WAY OF COMPROMISE UNDER SECTION 320 IN CRPC

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 1,338

This article is written by Anjali Singh of 7^th Semester of BA LLB (Hons.) of UPES, Dehradun

ABSTRACT

“To settle a matter by a money payment, instead of other liability,” is what it means to compound. In terms of criminal law, the victim has the option of compounding the offence. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides legal regulations surrounding the compounding of offences. There for this Section, 320 of the Code is to encourage amity between the parties to restore peace. Establishing a settlement between two parties where the complainant agrees to have the charges against the offender dropped is known as compounding an offence.

On this premise, transgressions are separated into two groups:

Punishable Offences
Non-Compoundable Infractions

Compoundable offences are those that can be resolved through compromise, in which the accuser agrees to drop the charges, whereas non-compoundable offences are the more serious ones in which the parties are unable to reach an agreement.

Keywords- Criminal Law, Compoundable, Agreement, Offences.

INTRODUCTION

It is in the State’s best interest for litigation to conclude, according to the Latin proverb “Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium.” Numerous cases have been pending before the courts of law for a long period. The criminal justice system now has a strong tool at its disposal that, properly used, can drastically shorten the time it takes to resolve. Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which deals with compoundable offences, contains such a clause. The purpose of this article is to define compoundable offences and to outline the conditions under which non-compoundable charges may be upgraded under Section 320.

WHAT IS COMPOUNDING OF AN OFFENCE?

In some circumstances, it may be wise to allow the compounding of charges and to conclude the legal processes if the accused and the crime victim reach a settlement. The court can then sanction this withdrawal, putting an end to the criminal trial. On occasion, the public prosecutor or the complainant may decide it is preferable to abandon the case. The Criminal Procedure Code authorises suspending the proceedings under certain conditions if the magistrate determines that it is desirable.

In certain situations, the complainant’s non-appearance or death may require the proceedings to come to an end; similarly, the case may be dropped if the accused individual passes away, subject to certain conditions. It can be necessary to award the accused person a conditional pardon for his alleged involvement in the crime due to some strong arguments. If such a pardon were obtained, the accused person’s case would have to be dismissed.

COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES UNDER COMMON LAW

Under common law, compounding a felony constituted a misdemeanour. In certain states, the offence is punishable by a felony. Compounding for misdemeanours is not prohibited. However, a misdemeanour prosecution waiver is not enforceable because it goes against public opinion. According to this theory, compounding is illegal under virtually all of American law. In two states, the compounding of a crime may be tried as a common law criminal, and in forty-five states, as a statutory offence. In England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, compounding is prohibited.

CONSTITUENTS OF SECTION 320 CrPC

Section 320(1) – Compounding without the court’s permission

Under Section 320(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the legislation permits the compounding of offences without the consent of the court. Certain parts of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which apply to these crimes, allow for compounding by the people mentioned in the third column of that table.

Here are a few examples of such offences:

Section of the I.P.C. applicable	Offences	Persons by whom the offences may be compounded
298	using language, gestures, etc. to offend someone’s religious sensibilities.	a target whose religious sensibilities are meant to be offended.
323, 334	intentionally hurting someone or intentionally hurting someone on purpose.	the one who has been harmed.
341, 342	wrongful restraint or confinement of any individual.	The subject is bound or restricted.
352, 355, 358	assault or the use of violent crime.	the subject of criminal force or the target of an assault.
426, 427	Mischief is what is done when only one private individual suffers loss or damage.	the person who loses something or gets hurt.
447	illegal trespass	The owner of the property violated property rights.
448	House-trespass	The individual who was in charge of the property violated its boundaries.
451	Trespassing into someone’s home is a crime that carries a prison sentence.	The person who broke into the house without permission (other than to steal) was punished
482	The use of a false property mark is illegal.	the person who has lost something or been damaged. an outcome of such usage.
483	fake a property mark used by someone else	the person who has lost something or been damaged. an outcome of such usage.
486	selling, displaying, or having in one’s possession goods displaying a fake property mark to do so.	the one who has suffered a loss or damage. a result of such use.
491	Criminal service agreement breach.	the party the perpetrator has a business relationship with
497	Adultery	The husband of the woman.
498	Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married	The husband of the woman and the woman.
500	Defamation of the President, Vice President, Governor of a State, Administrator of a Union territory, or Minister about his public activities when brought about as a result of a Public Prosecutor complaint.	The person defamed.
501	knowing that the material they are printing or engraving is defamatory.	The person is defamed.
502	Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing it to contain such matter.	The person is defamed.
504	Insult intended to provoke a breach of the peace	The person was insulted.
506	Criminal intimidation.	The person is intimidated.
508	causing someone to think they are being punished by God	The person is induced.

Section 320(2) – Compounding an offence requires court approval.

Under Section 320(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the law permits the compounding of offences for which a court’s approval is required. Certain sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which punish these offences, allow for the compounding of them by the people named in the third column of the table.

Here are a few examples of such offences-

The relevant section of the I.P.C.	Offences	Person by whom offence may be compounded
312	Causing miscarriage	The woman to whom miscarriage is caused.
325	Voluntarily causing grievous hurt	The person to whom hurt is caused.
337	causing harm by acting hastily or carelessly that puts another person’s life or personal safety in peril.	the person who has been harmed.
338	acting in a way that puts human life or other people’s safety at peril and causes significant injury.	the person who has been harmed.
357	assault or use of unlawful force to imprison someone.	who was assaulted or who was the target of force.
381	theft committed by a clerk or a servant of a master’s property.	The property’s owner was taken.
406	Criminal breach of trust.	the proprietor of the real estate where a breach of trust occurred
408	The trust-breaching offence committed by a servant or clerk.	whoever is responsible for the assets where the trust was broken.
418	Cheating is a person whose interest the offender was bound, either by law or by legal contract, to protect.	The person cheated.
420	Making, changing, or destroying valuable security while using dishonest means to induce the transfer of property.	The person cheated.
494	remarriage while a husband or wife is still alive	The husband or wife of the person so marrying.
500	When brought about as a result of a public prosecutor complaint, defamation of the President, Vice President, Governor of a State, Administrator of a Union territory, or Minister about his public activities is prohibited.	The person is defamed.
509	uttering or making sounds, making motions, or showing any object with the intent to offend a woman’s modesty or invade her privacy.	the woman whose privacy was invaded or who was being insulted.

The Andhra Pradesh Act of 2003 (Section 2), which led to the adoption of Section 494A of the IPC, which provides for cruelty towards a woman by her husband or any of his relatives, was one state amendment adopted in addition to the aforementioned provisions.

Section 320(3)

According to this provision, if an offence is compoundable in nature, aiding or abetting its commission or an attempt to do so, or where the accused is held accountable under provision 34 or Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, constitutes an additional offence that is compoundable in nature. In other words, if someone sought to commit a compoundable offence or helped out in its commission, that attempt or help is also compoundable in nature. This is only true for crimes when encouraging, trying to encourage, and committing crimes in and of themselves.

Section 320(4)

For instance, if someone named “A” intentionally hurt someone else’s religious sentiments with their comments, that is a compoundable crime, and the parties may be able to come to an amicable solution. In a similar vein, if “A” attempted to steal or helped/aided someone else to steal, then this attempt and aid are similarly compoundable in nature.

The situations under which the victim is a minor, mentally incapacitated, or deceased are described in this subsection. According to this clause, a guardian acting on behalf of a victim who is underage (18) or mentally ill may compound the charge on their behalf. The court must first provide permission for a guardian to compound a crime on behalf of a child. According to this clause, a legal representative of a person who had the power to compound an offence may do so on that person’s behalf if prior court approval is obtained, even if that person is deceased as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

Section 320(5)

It specifies that compounding of such an offence is not permissible at that time without the consent of the court when the accused is facing trial for a compoundable offence or when the accused has been found guilty by a court and an appeal against the conviction is underway. It is irrelevant whether the offence falls within Section 320(1) and (2)’s class 1 or class 2 classification.

Section 320(6)

If the person requesting the authorization is competent to do so, the High Court may grant permission to compound offences under Section 401 of the CrPC and the Sessions Court may do so under Section 399 of the CrPC. The revisionary powers of the High Court and Sessions Court are specified in Sections 401 and 399 of the CrPC, respectively.

Section 320(7)

It states that an offence may not be compounded if the accused is subject to either additional punishment or a punishment of a different sort due to a prior conviction.

Section 320(8)

The repercussions of compounding an infraction are covered in this Section. Compounding an offence result in the accused’s acquittal. The fact that the offence was compounded with the court’s permission exonerates the offender of all charges regardless of whether the FIR had been filed or the trial had started. Because of this, the court could not conclude that composition could only be a post-cognizable occurrence in the case of Yesudas v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalamassery (2007) because the terms “accused” and “prosecution” under Section 320(2) and 320(8) of the Code were used.

Section 320(9)

No offence would be regarded as compounded, according to this section, unless those conditions were met. Additionally, it was ruled in the case of Gurcharan Singh Bhawani v. State (2002) that offences that are not punishable by a fine under Section 320(9) cannot be prosecuted under Section 482.

WHAT ARE NON- COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCES?

Non-compoundable offences can only be quashed rather than compounded. This is justified by the fact that the crime was so horrible and illegal in nature that the accused could not get away with it. Since the ‘state,’ or the police, typically files cases, the idea of the complainant making a compromise does not apply in this instance. These crimes are more serious and horrific, harming society as a whole rather than just the victim.

Because getting away with such serious violations would set a bad precedent in society, it is not permitted to compound such charges. Because they violate public policy, non-compoundable offences cannot be settled in a regular court. Every offence that isn’t listed under Section 320 of the CrPC isn’t compoundable. Even the court lacks the authority and resources to further an offence of this nature. A thorough trial is conducted, and based on the evidence used, either the perpetrator is found not guilty or guilty.

Examples of non-compoundable offences where the court’s approval is necessary include the following:

Using unsafe tools or methods to intentionally cause harm (Section 326).
Executing a transfer document fraudulently with a false statement of consideration (Section 423).
Unlawfully holding someone hostage for three or more days – Section 343
Section 352: Dishonest misappropriation of property; Section 403: Mischief by killing or injuring cattle, etc., of any worth of fifty rupees or more; Section 429: Assault or criminal force on a lady with the intent to offend her modesty.
Section 483: Counterfeiting a trade or property mark used by another
Causing severe harm by acting recklessly or carelessly that puts other people’s lives or personal safety in jeopardy is prohibited under Section 338.
Making, altering, or destroying valuable security with the intent to defraud is prohibited under Section 420.
Speaking or making sounds, making gestures, or displaying anything with the intent to offend a woman’s modesty or invade her privacy is against Section 509 of the Criminal Code.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPOUNDABLE AND NON- COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCES

Nature of crime

In the case of a compoundable offence, the nature of the offence is not as significant. Even yet, the non-compoundable offence has a serious nature to it. Compoundable offences include, for instance, criminal breach of trust, will full infliction of great bodily harm, etc., whereas non-compoundable offences include assault or use of criminal force against a woman with the intent to violate her modesty, dishonest property theft, etc.

Withdrawal of charges

The accused may have charges for a compoundable offence dropped or withdrawn. However, charges for a non-compoundable offence cannot be dropped against the accused while they are still ongoing.

Affected parties

A compoundable offence only affects one individual at a time. A non-compoundable offence, on the other hand, affects both private persons and society at large.

Compoundability

A settlement in a compoundable offence may be concluded with the court’s consent, as required by Section 320(1) of the CrPC, or without the court’s consent, as noted by Section 320(2) of the CrPC. A non-compoundable offence, on the other hand, cannot be compounded because the court lacks the authority to allow for the settlement of these offences. Instead, it can only be quashed.

Case filing

Compoundable offences frequently have cases brought by an individual. However, the state brings prosecutions for offences that cannot be compounded.

Basis of Distinction	Compoundable Offences	Non-Compoundable offences
Nature Of Crime	In the case of a compoundable offence, the nature of the offence is not as significant. Compoundable offences include, for instance, criminally breaching trust, voluntarily causing great harm, etc.	Even yet, the non-compoundable offence has a serious nature to it. For instance, non-compoundable offences include dishonest misappropriation of property, the unlawful force used against women to offend their sense of modesty and others.
Withdrawal of Charges	The accused may have charges for a compoundable offence dropped or withdrawn.	While the case is still active, the accused cannot have their charges against them withdrawn for a non-compoundable offence.
Affected Parties	A compoundable offence only affects one individual at a time.	A non-compoundable offence affects both specific people and society at large.
Compoundability	A settlement for a compoundable offence may be concluded with or without the court’s blessing.	An offence that isn’t quasi-compoundable can only be quashed.
Case Filing	Compoundable offences frequently have cases brought by an individual.	However, the state brings cases in non-compoundable offences.

What is plea bargaining and how is it different from compounding an offence?

Plea bargaining is the outcome of discussions between the prosecution and the accused before the trial, in which the accused admits guilt in exchange for an advantage or a lesser sentence. Sections 265A through 265L of India’s Criminal Procedure Code deal with plea bargaining. It applies to offences that can result in a prison sentence of up to 7 years, although it does not cover offences against minors or women who are under the age of 14. There cannot be an appeal against a court’s decision regarding plea bargaining. The fees are decreased, and some fees are eliminated.

The differences between the two are as follows:

While a compounding offence is guilt-free, plea bargaining requires admitting guilt.
On the other hand, the concept of compounding offences dates back to 1974. Plea bargaining was first proposed as a concept in 2006.
Plea negotiating does not result in the offender’s acquittal; it merely negotiates the charges and punishments. Contrarily, compounding offences result in the offender’s acquittal.
Section 300, which forbids an accused from being tried for the same or a different charge based on the same circumstances after being found guilty or not guilty, cannot be used by the offender under a plea agreement; but, an accused under a compounding of offences arrangement may.

What grounds exist under Section 320 CrPC for the compounding of non-compoundable offences?

“Just because a crime is punishable by more than one punishment under Section 320 CrPC does not preclude the court from exercising discretion given the circumstances.”
In Bhagwan Das v. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2019), the Supreme Court concluded that even if the charge is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court has the discretion to reject a motion to compound an offence.
The Supreme Court cited several cases, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), in which it ruled that the High Court must not throw out criminal cases when they include heinous or serious offences or when the public interest is at stake. If the offence is solely a civil matter, if it results from commercial activity, if the harm is personal, or if the parties have agreed, the proceedings may be dismissed. The High Court has the authority to terminate the criminal prosecution if there is little chance of conviction and the accused would suffer significant injustice if the case went on.
When the parties have settled, the High Court may use its inherent authority under Section 482 of the CrPC to halt criminal proceedings, even in situations involving non-compoundable offences, according to the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Gian Singh Case in the Narinder Singh case (1947). However, this ability needs to be used with caution. According to the Supreme Court, even though a violation of Section 307 of the IPC is against society, the high courts may decide whether the provision’s inclusion in the IPC is merely for show or whether there is adequate proof to support it. The Narinder Singh case judgement must be understood holistically and comprehensively in the context of the case, the Supreme Court
The High Court has established adequate conditions to invalidate criminal offences, and the Supreme Court has been cautious in deciding which criminal proceedings are to be compoundable. The Supreme Court held in the case of Rameshchandra J. Thakkar v. A.P. (1972) that if an offender is acquitted based on compounding and it is later shown that the compounding was unlawful, the acquittal can be reversed by the High Court using its revisionary power. In addition, the High Court may reverse an acquittal if it was granted on inappropriate grounds in the case of a non-compoundable offence.
In Y. Suresh Bahn v. State of A.P. (1987), the Supreme Court permitted compromise in a Section 326 IPC charge that was not compoundable. The Court described it as a unique instance and stated that it ought to be used as a precedent.

CONCLUSION

A crime is an essential wrong that is committed against the state and society. Any agreement made between the accused and the particular victim of the act should therefore not absolve the accused of criminal responsibility. However, where the offences are fundamentally the same, the Code believes it fair to recognise some of the charges as compoundable offences and others as compoundable only with the court’s agreement private and not particularly serious in nature. Although not all non-cognizable offences are non-compoundable, the bulk of compoundable offences are, Even if not all cognizable offences can be compounded, the offences that can only be amended with the court’s permission are usually cognizable. The nature of the crime must not be excessively serious to be included in the category of compoundable offences. The crimes should typically be personal in nature. Private offences are those that hurt a person’s identity or competence. Such offences shouldn’t put the public at risk or harm the state’s well-being. Dacoity, murder, and other horrific crimes are all unpardonable acts.

REFERENCES

https://nyayconnection.com/compromise-your-criminal-case-section-320-crpc/#:~:text=Compounding%20of%20offences%20under%20Section%20320%20of%20the,for%20some%20form%20of%20compensation%20or%20other%20conditions.

https://devgan.in/crpc/section/320/