Table of Contents

Compoundable and Non Compoundable offence in

India:Introduction...............................................................1
Bailable and Non-Bailable offences...................................2
Cognizable and Non-Cognizable offences.........................2
Compoundable and Non-Compoundable offences...........2
Compromise under non-compoundable offences.............2
Distinction between Compoundable and non-
compoundable offences:......................................................3
Special or local laws and ambit of section 320 CrPC.......3
Offences under IPC other than enumerated in Section
320 of CrPC..........................................................................3
Power of High Court under section 482 of CrPC:...........5
Narinder Singh v State of Punjab:.....................................6
Civil matter..........................................................................6
Heinous and serious offences-............................................6
Section 307 of IPC-..............................................................6
Special statutes-...................................................................6
Conduct of the Accused-.....................................................6
Conclusion............................................................................7
Compoundable and Non Compoundable offence in
India:Introduction

Lawmakers classified offence into three categories on the basis of their nature,
taking the reference of policy-making. These categories are: Firstly, cognizable
offence and non-cognizable offence, secondly, bailable offence and non-
bailable offence, and thirdly, compoundable and non-compoundable offence.
In actual, when a layman tries to understand the philosophy behind these terms
he may think that basis of these classifications is based on seriousness or gravity
of the offence, or on the gravity of the punishment.

Yes! He might be correct but not as a whole for the classification isn’t limited to
these perspectives. It is the matter of policy-making to categorize the offences. 
The sole purpose is to smoothen the criminal justice system.

To understand the scenario, we first look at the bare provisions regarding the
first two categories in brief. Further, we’ll discuss the Compoundable and Non-
Compoundable offences in details.

Bailable and Non-Bailable offences

According to Section 2(a) of CrPC:-

‘Bailable offence’ means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First

Schedule, or which is bailable by any other law for the time being in force. 
‘Non-bailable offence’ means any other offences. It clearly demarcates if an act
which is an offence under the IPC is bailable or not, written in First Schedule.
Whatever may be the nature of the offence, if the first schedule mentions it as
bailable then it’s bailable. We can see in Section 147 of IPC, the offence of
‘rioting’ which sounds grave but it is a bailable offence, though it is cognizable.

Cognizable and Non-Cognizable offences

According to Section 2(c) of CrPC:-

‘Cognizable offence’ means an offence for which a police officer may in

accordance with first schedule arrest without a warrant. We can see Section 466
of IPC, which says, Offence is Forgery of a record of a Court of Justice or of a
Registrar of Births, etc., kept by a public servant. Although, it is grave and
punishable with the imprisonment for 7 years and fine. It is ‘non-cognizable’
offence while it’s non-bailable in nature.
Compoundable and Non-Compoundable offences
A wrong against society and the state is a serious crime. Therefore, any
compromise between the accused and the individual victim of the crime should
not absolve the accused from criminal responsibility while some wrongs are of a
private nature and are relatively less serious, CrPC considers it expedient to
recognize some of them as compoundable offences while others as non-
compoundable.

Compromise under non-compoundable offences

A compromise is an agreement between two or more parties to settle their
differences amicably, by avoiding a lawsuit.
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 there is a distinction made
between compoundable offences and non-compoundable offences. In general
words, compoundable offences are those offences where a compromise can be
drawn between the parties in order to drop all charges against the accused and a
non-compoundable offence is where the charges cannot be dropped against the
accused by way of a compromise due to the seriousness of the offence.

Distinction between Compoundable and non- compoundable offences:

Section 320 of CrPC

Offences mentioned in the table provided in section 320 of CrPC are of

compoundable in nature. By the way of compounding the offence, the trial
comes to end without complete disposal of the case.

Section 320 of CrPC reads as follows: 320(1) The offences punishable under the
sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two
columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons
mentioned in the third column of that Table. In the table, 21 penal offences are
listed, some of these are Sec 298,323,334 of IPC etc. Sec 334 of IPC is an
offence of ‘voluntarily causing hurt on provocation’. Sec 323 of IPC is an
offence of ‘voluntarily causing hurt’.
320(2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with
the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is
pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of the
table. In this table, 36 other penal offences are listed.
Briefly, Offences enumerated under section 320(2) are compoundable with the
prior permission of the court. Offences under section 320(1)  are compoundable
as a matter of right.

Special or local laws and ambit of section 320 CrPC

According to the scheme of the section, all offences under the special or local
laws are simply non-compoundable. Further,  it is left to the wisdom of the
legislature to decide as a matter of policy whether and to what extent offences
under such laws should be compoundable.

Offences under IPC other than enumerated in Section 320

of CrPC
In the end, section 320(9) of CrPC makes it quite clear that offences not
provided in this section are not compoundable. It means there is no effect of
compromise on criminal liability of the offence other than this section.

However, the Supreme Court gave permission for compounding the offence
under section 307,IPC (attempt to commit murder) in ‘Mahesh Chand v State of
Rajasthan' 1. The Supreme Court in ‘Ram Lal v State of J&K' 2, overruled its
decision and held that an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable
even with the permission of the court cannot be compoundable at all.

In ‘B.S. Joshi v State of Haryana'3, Supreme Court held that in a situation of

proceedings on the basis of non-compoundable offences like Section 498-A and
406, the High Court could quash them under Section 482 CrPC.

In ‘Gian Singh v State of Punjab', 4, the Supreme Court upholding the decision
of ‘B.S. Joshi v State of Haryana' 5, and observed that offences arising out of
family disputes or matrimony relating to dowry, etc in which wrong is basically
private in nature and parties have resolved their disputes, High Court may quash
the proceeding under Section 482 of the Code. This power is different from the
power of a criminal court to compound the offences.

Section 320 of CrPC,6 deals with Compoundable offences, these are offences
that are less serious in nature. Under a compoundable offence, the complainant
1
1990 Supp (1) SCC 681
2
(1999) 2 SCC 213
3
(2003) 4 SCC 675
4
(2012) 10 SCC 303
5
(2003) 4 SCC 675
6
§ 320, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
who has filed the case may enter into a compromise and agree to drop all the
charges against the accused. Two important elements that constitute such a
compromise are that;
• such a compromise is bonafide;
• the complainant has not received any consideration that he is not entitled to.
Section 320 classifies compoundable offences into two types. The kinds of
offences that fall under the different classification of compounding is as
follows;

• Where Court permission is not required before compounding– Voluntarily

causing hurt, Wrongfully restraining or confining any person, Assault or
use of criminal force, Theft, Cheating, Fraudulent removal or
concealment of property, Criminal trespass, Using a false trade or
property mark, Adultery, Criminal intimidation etc.
• Where Court permission is required before compounding– Causing
miscarriage, Voluntarily causing grievous hurt, Criminal breach of trust,
Marrying again during the life-time of a husband or wife etc.
Non-compoundable offences are those offences that are slightly more serious in
nature than compoundable offences. Due to the gravity of these offences, they
cannot be compounded and they can only be quashed. All the offences that are
not mentioned under section 320 of CrPC are classified as non-compoundable
cases. In these cases, the State or the police act as the complainants and hence it
is not possible for them to enter into a compromise with the accused to drop all
the charges.

In the case of Rameshchandra J, Thakkar vs. A. P. Jhaveri & Anr7, it was

held that, “where an acquittal is based on the compounding of an offence and
the compounding is invalid under the law, the acquittal would be liable to be set
aside by the High Court in exercise of its revisional powers.”
If a non-compoundable offence has been compounded, against the law and the
accused has been acquitted based on the same compromise, the High Court has
the power to set aside such an order.

Power of High Court under section 482 of CrPC:

Section 482 of CrPC8 gives the High Court inherent powers to deal with matters
in order to;
• to give effect to any order under CrPC, or
• to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
7
1973 AIR 84
8
]§ 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• to secure the ends of justice.
In the landmark case of Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr 9 the Supreme
Court held that “In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled
their dispute, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and
have serious impact on society.”
If the crime is serious in nature and has a grave impact on the society, the High
Court is empowered to quash the proceedings even if the parties have arrived at
a compromise. However, if it is a civil matter, the wrong is personal in nature
and if the parties have resolved the dispute by way of a compromise then the
proceedings may be quashed.

Narinder Singh v State of Punjab10:

In the above mentioned case, the Supreme Court took into consideration all the
principles laid down in several judgements regarding compromise in non-
compoundable cases and laid down the following guidelines for quashing
criminal proceeding in case of non-compoundable offences by high courts when
invoking their inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC;

Civil matter
If the proceedings deal with a civil or a commercial matter, the wrong done is
personal in nature and therefore the High Court can quash the proceedings by
invoking their powers under section 482 of CrPC.

Heinous and serious offences-

If the proceedings deal with a heinous or a serious offence, the High Court must
refrain from exercising their powers under section 482 of CrPC to quash the
proceedings.

Section 307 of IPC-

9
]((2012) 10 SCC 303)
10
(2014) 6 SCC 466)
This section deals with attempt to murder under the Indian Penal Code and it is
categorized as a heinous and a serious offence. However, in this case the Court
held that the High Court cannot rest its case completely on the fact that it is
classified as a serious offence and instead the High Court shall examine all the
evidence presented and determine if incorporation of section 307 is for name
sake or if there is actually enough evidence to prove the same. For this purpose,
the High Court shall examine the nature of injury, on which part of the body the
injury is made, nature of the weapon used etc.

Special statutes-

If the offences are under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act etc.,
the High Court must refrain from quashing the criminal proceedings even if the
parties have entered into a compromise.

Conduct of the Accused-

When the offences involved are private in nature, the high court, while
exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC in respect of non-
compoundable offences on ground that there is a compromise / settlement
between the victim and accused, is required to consider the antecedents and
conduct of the accused.11

Conclusion

Therefore, the above mentioned guidelines are to be taken into consideration

when the High Court is quashing a proceeding because the parties have arrived
at a compromise in a non-compoundable offence. The Supreme Court under a
bench of Justices R.Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna in the case of Manjit Singh
vs. State of Punjab12 held that it would not be appropriate to ignore and keep
aside statutory provisions in order to allow compounding of an offence that is
not compoundable under the law. However, they also said that while sentencing
the accused for a non-compoundable offence, the compromise entered into
between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance for considering the
quantum of sentence.

11
https://www.mondaq.com/india/Litigation-Mediation-Arbitration/793048/Compounding-Of-Non-
Compoundable-Offences-By-High-Courts-Under-Section-482-Of-CRPC-Supreme-Court-Re-Affirms-
Position
12
][Criminal Appeal Nos. 1090 of 2019 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 8293 of 2018]