Date of the Judgment: January 7, 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 37
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Can a non-compoundable offense under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 be compounded by the Supreme Court using its inherent powers, especially when the parties have reached an amicable settlement? This question was addressed by the Supreme Court in a recent case where the court allowed the compounding of the offense despite it being non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
Case Background
The case originated from a complaint lodged by Puttaraju at K.R. Pete Rural Police Station, Mandya, in FIR No. 198/2008. The complaint alleged that H.N. Pandakumar (Accused No. 3) and others had formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted Puttaraju and his family members, causing grievous injuries. Following the investigation, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 143, 341, 504, 323, 324, and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Trial Court, in its judgment dated January 24, 2012, in Sessions Case No. 68/2009, convicted H.N. Pandakumar and another accused under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. The other accused were acquitted.
H.N. Pandakumar’s appeal to the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No. 218/2012, resulted in a partial modification of the Trial Court’s judgment. The High Court, in its judgment dated September 1, 2023, reduced the sentence to one year of imprisonment while increasing the fine to Rs. 2,00,000. The other accused was acquitted. H.N. Pandakumar then approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed on January 19, 2024.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008 | FIR No. 198/2008 lodged by Puttaraju at K.R. Pete Rural Police Station, Mandya. |
| January 24, 2012 | Trial Court convicted H.N. Pandakumar and another accused under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| September 1, 2023 | High Court of Karnataka partially modified the Trial Court’s judgment, reducing the sentence to one year and increasing the fine to Rs. 2,00,000. |
| January 19, 2024 | Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by H.N. Pandakumar. |
| After January 19, 2024 | H.N. Pandakumar filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking compounding of the offense based on a compromise. |
| January 7, 2025 | Supreme Court allowed the Miscellaneous Application, recalled its earlier order, and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted H.N. Pandakumar under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Karnataka partially modified this, reducing the sentence but increasing the fine. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by H.N. Pandakumar. Subsequently, a Miscellaneous Application was filed seeking to compound the offense based on a settlement reached between the parties.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The provision reads as follows:
“326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Additionally, the judgment references the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which outlines the procedures for compounding offenses. Generally, Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a non-compoundable offense under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Arguments
The applicant/petitioner, H.N. Pandakumar, argued that a compromise had been reached with the complainant, Puttaraju, and that all disputes between their families had been amicably resolved with the intervention of elders and villagers.
The applicant agreed to pay Rs. 5,80,000 as compensation to the complainant. The complainant also filed an Interlocutory Application supporting the compounding of the offense, affirming the compromise, and seeking closure of the matter to ensure peace and harmony between the parties.
The complainant and the petitioner reside in close proximity, and it was argued that maintaining a peaceful relationship was essential. The compromise covered not only the criminal case but also related property disputes.
The applicant/petitioner contended that the court should use its inherent powers to allow the compounding of the offense, despite it being non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, given the exceptional circumstances of the case.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Compromise and Amicable Settlement |
|
| Complainant’s Support |
|
| Exceptional Circumstances |
|
| Invocation of Inherent Powers |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the offense under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, can be compounded by the Supreme Court using its inherent powers, given the amicable settlement between the parties.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the offense under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be compounded despite being non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. | Yes, the Court allowed the compounding of the offense. | The Court exercised its inherent powers due to the exceptional circumstances, including the amicable settlement and the complainant’s consent. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific cases or books. However, it does refer to the provisions of:
- Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This code outlines the procedures for compounding offenses, and specifies that Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is generally non-compoundable.
| Authority | Type | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Defined the offense for which the applicant was convicted. |
| Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 | Statute | Established that the offense is generally non-compoundable. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Compromise and Amicable Settlement | Accepted as a valid basis for considering the compounding of the offense. |
| Complainant’s Support | Recognized as unequivocal consent, supporting the voluntary nature of the settlement. |
| Exceptional Circumstances | Acknowledged as warranting the exercise of the Court’s inherent powers. |
| Invocation of Inherent Powers | The Court agreed to use its inherent powers to allow the compounding, despite the offense being non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. |
The Court considered the following authorities:
- The Court noted the fact that the offense under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is non-compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The Court used these authorities to establish the legal framework within which it was operating. While the offense was non-compoundable, the Court used its inherent powers to allow the compounding due to the unique circumstances of the case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the amicable settlement between the parties and the complainant’s unequivocal consent to the compounding of the offense. The court emphasized the need for peace and harmony between the families, who are close neighbors and distantly related. The settlement also covered related property disputes, which had been a long-standing issue. The court was also swayed by the genuine effort of the applicant to compensate the complainant, reflecting a desire to end the discord.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Amicable Settlement | 40% |
| Complainant’s Consent | 30% |
| Need for Peace and Harmony | 20% |
| Resolution of Property Disputes | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court considered the non-compoundable nature of the offense under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, it noted the exceptional circumstances, including the amicable settlement between the parties, the complainant’s unequivocal consent, and the need to maintain peace between the families. The Court also highlighted the resolution of related property disputes as a factor.
The Court stated:
“In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant’s unequivocal consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the present M.A.”
The Court further noted:
“While the offense under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this case, including the voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court’s inherent powers to give effect to the compromise.”
The Court also observed:
“The applicant/ petitioner’s commitment to paying the agreed compensation reflects a genuine effort to end the discord and uphold the terms of the settlement. This Court notes that the complainant’s unequivocal support for the compromise further underscores the voluntary nature of the settlement and the shared desire to put an end to all disputes.”
The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations. The final decision was reached by exercising the Court’s inherent powers to allow the compounding of the offense, despite its non-compoundable nature under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the amicable resolution.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court can use its inherent powers to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offenses in exceptional circumstances.
- ✓ Amicable settlements and the complainant’s consent can be significant factors in such decisions.
- ✓ The need for peace and harmony between parties, especially close neighbors, can be a valid consideration.
- ✓ Resolution of related disputes can also influence the Court’s decision.
Directions
The Court recalled its earlier order dismissing the Special Leave Petition and reduced the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its inherent powers to allow the compounding of a non-compoundable offense under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the complainant’s unequivocal consent, especially in circumstances where maintaining peace and harmony is essential. This judgment highlights an exception to the general rule that such offenses are non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Conclusion
In the case of H.N. Pandakumar vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court allowed the compounding of an offense under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is generally non-compoundable. The Court exercised its inherent powers due to the amicable settlement between the parties, the complainant’s consent, and the need for peace and harmony. This decision underscores the Court’s willingness to use its inherent powers to promote amicable resolutions in exceptional circumstances.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:
- Compounding of Offenses
- Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Inherent Powers of the Supreme Court
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ
Q: What is compounding of an offense?
A: Compounding of an offense is a process where the complainant agrees to drop the charges against the accused, usually after a settlement or compromise has been reached. This can lead to the closure of the case.
Q: What is Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It is a serious offense punishable with imprisonment.
Q: Is Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 compoundable?
A: Generally, no. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, offenses under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are non-compoundable. This means that the complainant cannot usually drop the charges even if they want to.
Q: How did the Supreme Court allow the compounding in this case?
A: The Supreme Court used its inherent powers to allow the compounding, despite it being non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This was done because the parties had reached an amicable settlement and the complainant had given their unequivocal consent to the compounding.
Q: What are the inherent powers of the Supreme Court?
A: The inherent powers of the Supreme Court are those powers that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or any law but are necessary for the Court to function effectively and do justice. These powers can be used to make orders that are necessary to achieve justice.
Q: What does this judgment mean for similar cases?
A: This judgment sets a precedent that in exceptional circumstances, where there is an amicable settlement and the complainant’s consent, the Supreme Court may use its inherent powers to allow the compounding of offenses that are generally non-compoundable. However, these circumstances will have to be very specific and compelling.