IMPORTANT POINT
Compounding of offences – Courts cannot grant permission to compound non-compoundable offences on the basis of any sort of compromise between parties, except High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Apex Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, six months and one year for respective offences. Vide the impugned order dated 26.12.2023, Madhya Pradesh High Court disposed of the criminal appeal of appellants by maintaining their conviction and sentence as awarded by the Trial Court.

3. Now, the appellants have filed the present appeal stating that they have settled the dispute with the injured persons vide a Compromise Deed dated 29.01.2024 and thus, pray before us to grant permission for compounding the offence.

The relevant portion from paragraphs 12 to 17 of the Settlement Deed reads as follows:

“12. That the First Party and Second Party are Uncle and Nephew in relation, thereby with the interference of elders of the family members, the First Party and Second Party have agreed to settle their dispute amicably.

13. That the First Party has tendered unconditional apology to the Second Party before the elder members of their families and the Second Party being the uncle and looking at the age of First Party has agreed to forgive the First Party on the unconditional apology tendered by the first party.

14. That the Second Party and First Party have agreed to compound their offence with the leave of the Hon'ble Court.

15. That the present MOU has been signed and executed by the SECOND PARTY out of his own free will without any fear, pressure, coercion and undue influence of others.

16. That the FIRST PARTY and SECOND PARTY have also agreed that in future no such dispute will arise between the First Party and Second Party and further, they have also agreed that they will maintain peace and harmony in the society.

17. That all the disputes in relation to above­mentioned FIR and Cases have been amicably settled by the parties and neither party shall file against the other, or against their family, relative successor or assign any criminal case in relation to the above­mentioned FIR and Cases.”

4. When this matter came for hearing before this Court on 22.04.2024, we had directed the appellants to implead the injured persons as party respondents and thereafter, the impleaded private respondents were asked to file the affidavits regarding their stand on compounding of the offences. We have gone through the affidavits and found that since the appellants are the cousin of respondents no.2 and 3 and have tendered an unconditional apology regarding the incident, these respondents have agreed to compound the offence. A similar stand has been taken by respondent no. 4, who is the uncle of the appellants.

5. As far as Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC are concerned, offences under these provisions are compoundable but the offence under Section 324 of the IPC is a non­compoundable offence.

6. Courts cannot grant permission to compound the non­ compoundable offences, on the basis of any sort of compromise between the parties, as it would be contrary to what has been provided by legislation, except the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC and the Apex Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

The compromise between the parties in non­compoundable cases has been taken into consideration by this Court in various occasions to reduce the sentence of the convicts. (See: Murali v. State (2021) 1 SCC 726; Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2020) 18 SCC 777) Also, in a series of other cases, considering that the incident occurred between relatives and the incident is of such a nature which did not have much impact on society, this Court had set aside the conviction by invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution in matters involving non­compoundable offences. (See: Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2021) 18 SCC 534; Srinivasan Iyenger & Anr. v. Bimla Devi Agarwal & Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 456; Ramawatar v. State of M.P (2022) 13 SCC 635)

Ho