Conviction Cannot Be Confirmed Overriding Agreement Between Parties To Compound The Offence: SC
Conviction Cannot Be Confirmed Overriding Agreement Between Parties to Compound the Offence – Supreme Court’s Stand
Background
Compoundable Offences:
In Indian criminal law, certain offences are compoundable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or other statutes, meaning the complainant can agree to settle the matter with the accused, and with the court’s permission, the case can be terminated without punishment.
Purpose of Compounding:
Reduces burden on courts
Encourages reconciliation between parties
Ensures that minor disputes do not result in unnecessary criminal liability
Legal Issue:
Can a court override a valid agreement between parties to compound an offence and still convict the accused?
Supreme Court’s Position
Key Case Law 1: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (1970) 2 SCC 378
Facts:
Offence under IPC was compoundable.
Complainant agreed to compound the offence with the accused.
Trial court ignored the agreement and convicted the accused.
Held:
Once parties validly agree to compound a compoundable offence, courts cannot override the agreement.
Compounding is an exercise of mutual consent, and the court’s role is only to approve it under the law.
Conviction in such cases defeats the purpose of compounding.
Significance:
Courts cannot enforce punishment against the will of the aggrieved party in cases where law allows compounding.
Key Case Law 2: Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. State of Bihar (1978) 4 SCC 193
Facts:
Dispute under a compoundable criminal offence.
Parties executed a valid settlement to compound the offence.
Trial court attempted to proceed with conviction.
Held:
Court emphasized that the consent of the victim is central.
No conviction can be confirmed when there is a valid agreement to compound.
Court may record the compounding agreement and close the proceedings.
Principles Derived from Supreme Court
Mutual Consent is Key:
The consent of the victim/complainant is central in compoundable offences.
Court’s Role is Supervisory:
Courts only verify the genuineness of the compounding agreement.
Conviction Cannot Be Imposed:
If the offence is lawfully compounded, conviction cannot be confirmed as it would negate the settlement.
Scope is Limited to Compoundable Offences:
Non-compoundable offences cannot be settled privately.
Public Policy Consideration:
Compounding encourages reconciliation and reduces litigation.
Overriding it goes against the purpose of criminal justice for minor offences.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Supreme Court Position |
|---|---|
| Compoundable Offence | Offences where law allows settlement between parties |
| Consent of Victim | Central and binding on the court |
| Court’s Power | Supervisory only – verify genuineness, approve compounding |
| Conviction | Cannot be confirmed once valid agreement exists |
| Leading Cases | Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (1970), Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. State of Bihar (1978) |
| Public Policy | Encourages reconciliation, reduces unnecessary criminal liability |
Conclusion
In compoundable offences, conviction cannot be imposed or confirmed if there is a valid agreement between the parties to compound the offence.
Courts must respect the compounding agreement unless there is evidence of coercion, fraud, or illegality.
This principle safeguards mutual consent, justice efficiency, and reconciliation between parties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments