Compoundable and Non Compoundable Offences

Offences are categorized into two groups: compoundable and non-compoundable offences. This classification aids in understanding the severity of offences and their legal handling.

Compoundable offences are minor crimes. In these cases, the victim may agree to withdraw charges through a genuine compromise. Such a compromise must be free of any improper motives or benefits for the victim.

Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) addresses compromise possibilities. These offences are less serious and fall into two categories:

1. No Court Permission Needed: These offences may be settled without court approval. Examples include:
- Adultery (Section 497, IPC)
- Causing minor injuries (Section 323, IPC)
- Defamation (Section 500, IPC)
- Unlawful entry (Section 447, IPC)

2. Court Permission Needed: These offences require prior court approval for resolution. Examples include:
- Theft (Section 379, IPC)
- Misappropriation of property (Section 406, IPC)
- Causing serious injuries (Section 325, IPC)
- Assault on a woman (Section 354, IPC)
- Dishonest use of property (Section 403, IPC)

Applications for compromise must be submitted to the court handling the trial. When resolved, the outcome is as if the accused is not guilty.
Some offences, even if they can be settled through compromise, necessitate court permission. These should be resolved before the trial begins. If the accused is already found guilty, court permission is needed for compromise during an appeal. Such permission is required due to the serious nature of these offences and their impact on societal standards.
 

Examples of compoundable offences include:

- Hurting someone's religious feelings (Section 298, IPC)
- Unlawful entry into a building (Section 448, IPC)
- Violating a service contract (Section 491, IPC)
- Knowingly printing defamatory material (Section 500, IPC)

Non-compoundable offences, however, are major crimes that cannot be settled through compromise. These offences can only be quashed or dismissed. They are treated seriously, as they require accountability for the accused. Typically, the state or police file these cases, so victim compromise is irrelevant.

All offences not listed in Section 320 of the CrPC are considered non-compoundable.
Non-compoundable offences affect both individuals and society. No compromise is allowed, and even the court cannot settle these offences. A complete trial is conducted to determine acquittal or conviction based on evidence.

Examples of non-compoundable offences include:

- Causing harm with dangerous weapons (Section 324, IPC)
- Reckless driving (Section 279, IPC)
- Unlawful confinement (Section 343, IPC)
- Assault against a woman (Section 354, IPC)
- Breach of trust by public servants (Section 409, IPC)
- Damage to public property (Section 431, IPC)
- Creation of fake property marks (Section 484, IPC)

The distinctions between compoundable and non-compoundable offences can be analyzed through key aspects:

1. Nature of Crime: Compoundable offences are less severe. Non-compoundable offences are grave and serious.
2. Withdrawal of Charges: Charges for compoundable offences can be withdrawn through compromise. No withdrawal is allowed for non-compoundable offences, regardless of agreements.
3. Affected Parties: Compoundable offences usually involve private individuals. Non-compoundable offences affect both individuals and society.
4. Compoundability: Compoundable offences may be solved with or without court approval. Non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded; quashing is the only option.
5. Filing of the Case: Cases of compoundable offences are typically filed by private individuals. Cases for non-compoundable offences are often initiated by the state.

In summary, the classification of offences into compoundable and non-compoundable is a fundamental aspect of legal systems. Compoundable offences allow resolution through compromise, reflecting leniency for lesser crimes. In contrast, non-compoundable offences, due to their serious nature, emphasize the necessity of full trials for justice.

This framework balances individual rights with societal welfare, asserting that serious transgressions mandate stringent accountability and punishment, while less severe offences offer opportunities for resolution and reconciliation.

Advocate Chikirsha Mohanty

4.0 | 2+ user ratings Greater Kailash - 1, Delhi
5 years

GET LEGAL HELP

GET LEGAL HELP