AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Analysing the retrieved Case Laws

Scanned Judgements…!

AI Overview...

Section 118(1) of BNS 2023 is Compoundable

Main Points and Insights:
Several sources clarify that offences under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 are generally non-compoundable (e.g., M B NOUFAL vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15413 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15413, INDEL00000151987, INDP00000117994, INPH00000055320, INPH00000033686).
However, in certain cases, offences under Section 118(1) may be compounded with the permission of the court, especially when accompanied by other offences that are compoundable, or when parties reach a mutual settlement (e.g., INDP00000117994, INPH00000033685, INPH00000055320).
Some judgments highlight that offences involving serious crimes like attempt to murder or grievous hurt under Section 118(2) are not compoundable and cannot be quashed during investigation (e.g., SAJI JOSEPH vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32523 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32523).
Courts have also emphasized that offences under Section 118(1), being public in nature, are generally treated as non-compoundable but may be considered for compounding in specific circumstances, such as mutual settlement before a Lok Adalat or with court approval (e.g., INDP00000117994, INPH00000033685).
Legal precedents (e.g., Gian Singh case) reinforce that non-compoundable offences can sometimes be quashed if parties settle and the Court finds it appropriate, but serious offences remain non-compoundable.
Analysis and Conclusion:
While Section 118(1) of BNS 2023 is primarily non-compoundable, there are exceptions where it can be compounded with court permission, especially when the offence is less serious and parties agree to settle.
The general legal stance is that serious offences under Section 118(2) or involving grievous hurt are not compoundable.
Court rulings suggest that quashing or compounding of offences under Section 118(1) depends on the facts of each case, mutual consent, and judicial discretion.
Therefore, Section 118(1) can be considered compoundableunder specific circumstances, but not inherently so by default.

References:- M B NOUFAL vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15413 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15413- INDEL00000151987- INDP00000117994- INPH00000055320- INPH00000033685- INPH00000033686- SAJI JOSEPH vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32523 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32523

Is Section 118(1) BNS 2023 Compoundable? Key Insights

In the evolving landscape of Indian criminal law, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 has replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), introducing nuanced changes to offences and procedures. One common query from legal practitioners, accused persons, and victims alike is: Section 118(1) of BNS 2023 is compoundable? This question arises frequently in cases involving hurt by dangerous weapons, as parties seek to settle disputes amicably.

This blog post delves into the compoundability of Section 118(1) BNS, drawing from judicial precedents and legal analyses. Note: This is general information based on available sources and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.

Understanding Section 118(1) of BNS 2023

Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponds to Section 324 of the IPC. It addresses voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. This offence typically involves injuries inflicted using instruments like knives, sticks, or other objects capable of causing serious harm, but without intending death or grievous hurt as defined under higher sections.

For instance, in medical reports leading to charges, this section is invoked when injuries are not grievous but caused by prohibited means. BANKU RAM vs STATE OF HP AND ANR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8337 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8337 On the basis of medical report, Section 118(1) of the BNS was added, in this case.

The severity of such offences makes their classification crucial, especially regarding whether they can be compounded—meaning settled between parties without full trial.

What Does 'Compoundable' Mean in Indian Law?

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, which replaces the CrPC, compoundable offences (listed in Section 359 BNSS) allow the complainant and accused to reach a mutual settlement, leading to case withdrawal. Non-compoundable offences, however, require court permission and are treated as crimes against society, not just individuals.

Compoundable with permission: Possible in specific scenarios.
Non-compoundable: Prosecution proceeds regardless of settlement, barring exceptional judicial relief.

General Rule: Section 118(1) BNS is Non-Compoundable

Judicial interpretations consistently hold that Section 118(1) BNS is non-compoundable by default. Courts emphasize its public nature, protecting societal interests against violence.

In one ruling: It is submitted that since the offences alleged under sections 126(2), 352, 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 ... not compoundable in nature. M B NOUFAL vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15413
Another case states: While the offence under Section 118(1) BNS is non-compoundable, the offences under Sections 332(c), 351(2) and 115(2) BNS are compoundable in certain cases. SH RAM SWAROOP VS. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8486 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8486
Similarly: In the present case, though the offences under sections 296, 3(5) & 118(1) of BNS are non-compoundable... BHUPENDRA SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4341 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4341

These precedents underscore that Section 118(1), akin to IPC 324, is typically non-compoundable to deter weapon-based assaults.

Exceptions: When Can It Be Compounded?

Despite the general rule, courts may permit compounding under exceptional circumstances, particularly with mutual settlements, especially if accompanied by compoundable co-offences or via Lok Adalat.

Key scenarios include:- Mutual compromise with court approval: Parties file joint applications, and courts exercise discretion if no public interest is gravely affected.- Quashing FIRs under BNSS Section 528: Possible if settlement prevails and offence isn't heinous.

Examples from case law:- The offences punishable under Section 126(2) and 115(2) are compoundable under Section 359 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. While noting 118(1)'s status, courts weighed settlements. HARINDER ALIAS SURI vs STATE OF HP AND ORS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8513 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8513- In a quashing petition: The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.119 dated 02.08.2025 under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS... on the basis of compromise dated 22.09.2025. SATNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6921 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6921- Post-Lok Adalat: Although, on the basis of good sense... the offences have been compounded before the National Lok Adalat on 8.3.2025, however, offences... BANKU RAM vs STATE OF HP AND ANR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8337 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8337- Another: offences under section 115 (2) & 351 (2) of BNS, are compoundable with the permission of the court, however, in view of the compromise entered... BHUPENDRA SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4341 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4341

These illustrate that while inherently non-compoundable, judicial discretion allows compounding for Section 118(1) in less severe cases with consent.

Distinction with Section 118(2) BNS

Contrastingly, Section 118(2) BNS (corresponding to IPC 326) involves grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, which is strictly non-compoundable. Courts refuse quashing: Since, serious offences viz. attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS and voluntarily causing grievous hurt punishable un.... SAJI JOSEPH vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32523

This differentiation is vital—118(1) offers more flexibility than 118(2).

BNS 2023 vs. IPC: Continuity and Changes

Section 118(1) mirrors IPC 324, retaining non-compoundable status under BNSS schedules. However, BNSS expands compounding options for certain hurts, indirectly influencing 118(1) via associated sections like 115(2) (simple hurt). Courts reference precedents like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab for quashing non-compoundables on settlement.

Practical Implications for Accused and Complainants

If facing charges under Section 118(1) BNS:1. Seek early settlement: File compromise affidavits.2. Approach Lok Adalat: For mediated resolutions.3. Petition for quashing: Under BNSS 528, citing no criminal intent.4. Bail considerations: Often granted if co-accused settle. NUMAN ZAHOOR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22242 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22242

Youth or first-time offenders may receive leniency: This Court has also kept in view the fact that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are young college-going students. NUMAN ZAHOOR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22242 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22242

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Section 118(1) of BNS 2023 is generally non-compoundable, reflecting its seriousness as a public offence. However, exceptions exist through court permission, mutual compromises, or Lok Adalat settlements, particularly when facts indicate minor harm or reconciliation.

Key Takeaways:- Default Status: Non-compoundable M B NOUFAL vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15413 SH RAM SWAROOP VS. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8486 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8486.- Exceptions: Possible with judicial nod BHUPENDRA SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4341 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4341 SATNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6921 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6921.- Case-Specific: Depends on injury nature, parties' consent, and discretion.- Seek Professional Help: Always consult a lawyer; outcomes vary.

Stay informed on BNS transitions. For more legal insights, subscribe or share!

#BNS2023, #CompoundableOffences, #IndianCriminalLaw

SH RAM SWAROOP VS. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8486

While the offence under Section 118(1) BNS is non-compoundable, the offences under Sections 332(c), 351(2) and 115(2) BNS are compoundable in certain cases. 8. ... 115(2), 118(1), 332(c), 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233 at P.S. ... Although the offence under Section 118#H....

Mohammad Muzammil S/o Mohammad Nazir vs The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Jinsi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6553

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 . 2.

NUMAN ZAHOOR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22242

BNS , 2023. 2. Today, an application supported by affidavits has been filed jointly by the accused as well as the second respondent-complainant. ... (1), 126(2), Sections 3 (5) of a href="./.. ... This Court has also kept in view the fact that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are young college-going students.

SAJI JOSEPH vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32523

On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(2) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘BNS’ for short]. ... Since, serious offences viz. attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS and voluntarily causing grievous hurt punishable un....

BHUPENDRA SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4341

In the present case, though the offences under sections 296, 3(5) & 118 (1) of BNS are non-compoundable and offence under section 115 (2) & 351 (2) of BNS , are compoundable with the permission of the court, however, in view of the compromise entered ... offences punishable under sections 296, 115 (2), 351 (2), 3(5) added section 118#HL_EN....

GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6920

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of cross case bearing GD No.46 dated 02.08.2025 Annexure P-2 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, Police Station Boha, District Mansa in FIR No.119 dated 02.08.2025 under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS ... As per the statement of complainant and 10 rapat No.46 dated 02.08.2025 under #HL_....

SATNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6921

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.119 dated 02.08.2025 under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Boha, District Mansa and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 22.09.2025 ... As per the statement of complainant and I0 rapat No.46 dated 02.08.2025 under Section#HL_EN....

BANKU RAM vs STATE OF HP AND ANR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8337

On the basis of medical report, Section 118(1) of the BNS was added, in this case. Since, the petitioner had not disclosed abo.ut the weapon of offence, as such, Section 238 of the BNS was also added, in this case. H 4. ... Although, on the basis of good sense, which has prevailed upon them, the offences have been compounded before the National Lok Adalat on 8.3.2025, however, offences ....

Anshul Rana vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 343

(b) accused should be a member of an organised crime syndicate; 22. This Section was explained by the Karnataka High Court in Avinash vs. State of Karnataka (11.03.2025 - KARHC): MANU/KA/0938/2025 as under: 1. The primary intent behind introducing Section 111 of BNS, 2023, is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organised crime syndicates. From a reading of the said provision of law, it is manifest that for the purpose of invoking Section 111 of BNS, 2023, there....

Gopesh S/o. Gopinathan Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 575

3. The prosecution case is that, on 28.01.2025 at about 08.45 PM, one Mr. Nitheesh who is the defacto complainant herein came to his house and at that time, the accused attacked him and caused injuries using a knife and iron pipe. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.88/2025 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 11....

Sibin S.V S/o Sekharan.K Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 395

3. Prosecution case is that on 10.02.2025 at about 12:30 p.m., the son of the defacto complainant was summoned by the petitioner. The son of the defacto complainant was studying in 6th standard. It is alleged that the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant’s son with a cane due to the enmity towards the de facto complainant’s son that he spread the news to the other students about the death of his son in an accident, when the petitioner was driving the vehicle. Hence, it is alleged that....

Manikandan N. P S/o, Prakasan N. P. VS State of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 82

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 3. Petitioner herein is the 8 th accused in Crime No.449/2024 of Vellayil Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others, alleging o punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 324(4) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNS). This Bail Application is Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 2. Principles of Judicial D....

Vuenow Infotech Pvt.Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(All) 2152

22. The main plank of argument raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner is that petitioner and its associate entities has not committed any fraud as no individual/investor made a complaint and the entire search and lodging of FIR is based on mere assumption. Explanation 1 A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 or not who deducts the employee's contribu....