Non-Compoundable Offences Cannot Be Compounded On Basis Of Compromise Except By HCs U/s 482 CrPC Or SC Under Article 142 Of Constitution: SC
The Supreme Court observed that courts cannot compound non-compoundable offences based on any compromise between parties, except for the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC and the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution set aside the conviction of the appellants, who had been convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 323, 324, and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Bench took note of the dispute settlement between the families, and allowed the compounding of the offences, thus quashing the earlier convictions.
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed, “Courts cannot grant permission to compound the noncompoundable 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.”
Advocate Deeksha Saggi represented the appellants, while AAG D.S. Parmar appeared for the respondents.
The appellants had filed an appeal before the Apex Court stating that they settled the dispute with the injured persons vide a Compromise Deed and thus, prayed for the grant of permission for compounding the offence.
An incident occurred 2011 relating to a minor issue between close relatives, wherein one of them was tring to tie bullocks to which the other one objected by saying that it was their land.
An FIR was registered by the complainants after which the Trial Court sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment: three months for the offence under Section 323, six months for Section 324, and one year for Section 325. The Madhya Pradesh High Court maintained the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
The Supreme Court took note of the settlement Deed which read, “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.”
The Bench noted that Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC were compoundable offences but the offence under Section 324 of the IPC was a noncompoundable one.
The Court stated that a compromise between parties for non-compoundable offences has been taken into consideration by the Court in various occasions to reduce the sentence of the convicts.
The Bench clarified that the same is done only in “exceptional” cases after considering various factors including “the nature of injuries, relation between parties and the impact of crime on society, etc.”
Consequently, the Court held, “As is clear from the compromise, the appellants and complainant side are close relatives and after settling their disputes, both sides have agreed to maintain peace and harmony in the society. Taking all of this into account, we invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and hereby, set aside the conviction of appellants in the present case. Appellants, who are already outside jail, need not surrender.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal.
Cause Title: Suraj Singh Gujar & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 661)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Deeksha Saggi, Abhishek Kumar, Rituparn Uniyal and K Anil Singh; AOR Ram Lal Roy
Respondents: AAG D.S. Parmar; AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker and Satyajeet Kumar; Advocates Abhimanyu Singh, Saurabh Singh, Shruti Verma, Nayan Mishra and Shivang Jain
