The complainant can unilaterally compound offences under the NI Act, with the process governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

O R D E R

The accused in C.C.No.83 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli, challenges the judgment of conviction passed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, (for short ‘ the NI Act’) in this Crl.Rev. Petition. The revision petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court. He was also directed to pay Rs.1,15,895/- as compensation to the complainant.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the complainant/respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 147 of the NI Act seeking permission to compound the offence stating that he has no surviving grievance against the accused.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the composition of the offence can be permitted only on deposit of costs as directed by the Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H [ AIR 2010 SC 1907 ]. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that Section 147 of the NI Act permits the complainant to compound the offence unilaterally. The learned counsel submitted that of the NI Act is governed by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

5. This Court appointed Advocate Shri.K.M. Firoz as Amicus Curiae to address the issue. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae.

6. Compounding is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows:-

“ Compounding a crime:--

The offence of either agreeing not to prosecute a crime that one knows has been committed or agreeing to hamper the prosecution.”

7. In Sri.P. Ramanatha Aiyer’s The Law Lexicon (Reprint 2002 – Second Edition), compounding is defined as follows:-

“Compounding felony or offence:-- Compounding an offence is defined to be “the offence of taking a reward for forbearing to prosecute a felony; as where the party robbed takes his goods again, or other amends upon an agreement not to prosecute.”

8. There is a clear difference between compromise and compounding. The two cannot be equated. Compromise arrived at between the parties does not have the effect of automatically compounding the offence.

Compounding under the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 and the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (‘Sanhita’ for short)

9. The policy of law as contained in Section 320 of the Code and Section 359 of the Sanhita is to promote friendliness between the parties so that peace between them is restored.

10. It is settled that composition as provided under Section 320 of the Code and Section 359 of the Sanhita is a unilateral act. A joint application by the accused and the victim is not a requirement of the Statute.

11. The Code and the Sanhita seek to categorize the offences into two groups. Under sub-section(1), certain offences have been listed which can be compounded without the permission of the Court and under sub-section(2), certain offences are listed which can be compounded only with the permission of the Court. Sub-section (3) shows that when an offence is compoundable under the Code or the Sanhita, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 ( Section 359 of the Sanhita) or Section 149 of the IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound the offence is dead, his legal representatives may, with the consent of the