Is composition of a criminal offence a unilateral act or a bilateral one? Is it necessary to insist on the appearance of an accused person to enable the victim to compound a criminal offence? Is a Criminal Court justified in insisting on a joint application for composition by the victim and the accused for invoking the powers under Section 320, Cr. P. C. to accept and/or accord permission for a composition? Is there any distinction between "withdrawal" of a complaint under Section 257, Cr. P. C. and composition of an offence under Section 320, Cr. P. C.? Even if there be such a distinction, is that distinction relevant in the dynamics of operation under Section 320, Cr. P. C.? Does such alleged distinction justify insistence by the Court on the personal appearance of the accused to consider an application for composition? In a case where the Court has chosen to issue non-bailable warrant against the accused, is it essential that such accused must appear personally before the Court for any further steps-even for a further step for which personal presence of the accused is not essential? The above questions of daily relevance, recurrence and significance before a criminal Court arise for consideration in this Cri. M.C.

2. Bereft of details, the crucial facts in the case can be summarised thus : Three persons together filed a joint complaint before the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam. The allegation was that the accused, the petitioner herein, had committed the offence of cheating and breach of trust punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner received process. He along with the complainants/victims appeared before the learned Magistrate through counsel and filed an application for composition. The learned Magistrate, it is submitted, insisted on personal appearance of the petitioner and his being released on bail as a condition precedent to permit composition. The petitioner could not arrange sureties and could not appear before the learned Magistrate. Warrant of arrest has been issued against him. The petitioner wants the powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to be invoked to direct the Magistrate to consider the application for composition without insisting on his personal presence, notwithstanding the issue of a non-bailable warrant against him. It is in this fact scenario that the above questions have come up for hearing.

3. What is composition of a criminal offence? A look at the very fundamentals may be helpful. There is a basic and axiomatic fiction in criminal jurisprudence - that all crimes are offences against the State. There may be personally aggrieved individuals also because of the commission of the crime. But in all crimes, the real aggrieved is and ought to be the State representing the entire polity. Whether it be unmerited acquittal or conviction, the real loser, the aggrieved, fictionally is the State. The State may condone and compound the crimes. The provisions of Sections 321, 432 and 433, Cr. P.C. deal with the powers of the Court to forebear from prosecuting an indictee and not compelling him to suffer the punishment.

4. Consequentially no private citizen, even if he be the direct victim of the crime, can settle, compromise or compound any criminal offence. Such a composition is not permitted by law ordinarily. It is against public policy to permit settlement, compromise or composition of felony. But this principle of law admits exceptions. The law declares certain offences to be compoundable. Except those offences which are declared by law to be compoundable, no other offence is compoundable. Litigants resort to the unethical, immoral or amoral course of turning hostile on oath to give effect to such non permissible compromise, settlement or compounding. But the policy of law is not to accept such composition/settlement unless the offence is declared by law to be compoundable.

5. Settlement of disputes certainly cate