Compounding Of Offences Under Section 320
⚖️ 1. Compounding of Offences Under Section 320 IPC
🧾 What is Compounding?
Compounding means the settlement of a criminal case between the victim and the offender by mutual agreement, usually involving the victim agreeing to forgive the accused, often with or without some compensation.
📝 Section 320 IPC: Offences Which May be Compounded
Section 320 provides a list of certain offences which can be compounded either by the complainant or by the court with the consent of the parties involved.
These offences are mostly “private” or “semi-private” offences where the state allows victims to withdraw prosecution in the interest of harmony.
✍️ Types of Offences under Section 320 (Non-exhaustive, includes):
Voluntarily causing hurt (Sections 321, 323, 324, 325, 326)
Wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement (Sections 341, 342)
Criminal trespass (Sections 447, 448)
Defamation (Section 499)
Criminal intimidation (Section 506)
📌 Important Points:
Compounding can be done only for offences listed in Section 320.
For offences not in Section 320, compounding is not allowed unless provided by specific laws.
Compounding generally discharges the accused from further prosecution.
Some offences can be compounded only with permission of the court.
Compounding may happen before or even during trial but must be before judgment.
⚖️ 2. Detailed Case Law on Compounding under Section 320 IPC
🔹 Case 1: Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana (1975) SC
Facts: The accused was charged with voluntarily causing hurt. The victim agreed to compound the offence.
Issue: Whether compounding under Section 320 discharges the accused completely.
Held: The Supreme Court held that once offences are compounded, the accused is discharged from prosecution. The court cannot proceed with trial once compounding is proved.
Significance: Established that compounding amounts to waiver of prosecution by the victim.
🔹 Case 2: B.K. Pavitra v. State of Karnataka (2010) SC
Facts: The complainant agreed to compound the offence of criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC).
Issue: Whether court’s permission is necessary for compounding offences under Section 506.
Held: The Court clarified that for offences punishable with imprisonment up to two years (like Section 506 IPC), compounding requires permission of the court.
Significance: Emphasized that court’s permission is mandatory for compounding offences punishable with imprisonment >1 year but ≤2 years.
🔹 Case 3: State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) SC
Facts: The accused was charged under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon). The parties sought to compound.
Issue: Whether offences under Section 320 IPC can be compounded after the trial begins.
Held: The Supreme Court held that compounding can be done anytime before the judgment is pronounced.
Significance: Courts may accept compounding after trial begins but before judgment.
🔹 Case 4: Satya Pal Singh v. State of U.P. (1975) SC
Facts: The victim and accused agreed to compound offences under Section 323 IPC.
Issue: Whether such compounding needs to be recorded by the court.
Held: The Court ruled that the court must record the compounding agreement on record and ensure that the consent is free and voluntary.
Significance: Proper recording of compounding is mandatory for validity.
🔹 Case 5: Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) SC
Facts: The accused and complainant in a rioting case sought compounding.
Issue: Whether compounding applies to offences involving public interest like rioting.
Held: Court held offences against the state or public at large cannot be compounded, as the State is the victim.
Significance: Distinguishes private offences from public offences where compounding is not allowed.
🔹 Case 6: State of Maharashtra v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (1995) SC
Facts: In a case involving criminal trespass and damage to property, the parties agreed to compound.
Issue: Whether corporate entities can compound offences on behalf of their officers.
Held: Court held that in case of corporate bodies, authorized representatives can compound offences with the court’s permission.
Significance: Important in commercial/corporate offences.
📊 Summary Table: Compounding Cases
| Case Name | Key Point | Section(s) Involved |
|---|---|---|
| Raj Kumar v. Haryana | Compounding discharges accused | Various under 320 |
| B.K. Pavitra v. Karnataka | Court permission required for certain offences | 506 IPC |
| State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam | Compounding allowed any time before judgment | 320 IPC |
| Satya Pal Singh v. U.P. | Court must record compounding agreement | 320 IPC |
| Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. Punjab | Public offences cannot be compounded | Not compoundable |
| State of Maharashtra v. Bajaj | Corporate bodies can compound through representatives | 447, 427 IPC |
⚖️ 3. Additional Important Points
Compounding is a mode of settlement, not acquittal.
Courts should ensure free consent and absence of coercion.
Non-compoundable offences include serious crimes like murder, rape, theft, etc.
Some laws (e.g., NDPS Act) have their own rules for compoundable offences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments