Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that courts cannot grant permission to compound the non-compoundable 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 CrPC and the apex court in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.  

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, however, highlighted that in several cases where incidents occurred between relatives and had a minimal societal impact, the Supreme Court has exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside convictions, even in non-compoundable offences.

The bench referred to judgments in Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan (2021), Srinivasan Iyenger & Anr Vs Bimla Devi Agarwal & Ors (2019), and Ramawatar Vs State of MP (2022).

It was observed that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, considered compromises between parties in non-compoundable cases to reduce sentences, as seen in Murali Vs State (2021) and Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr (2020).

However, the bench stressed, that such relief should only be granted in exceptional cases, after evaluating various factors like the nature of injuries, the relationship between the parties, and the impact of the crime on society.

The bench also pointed out that the top court in Ramgopal & Anr Vs State of MP (2022) discussed the powers of Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC (in relation to high courts) in quashing criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences.

"As opposed to Section 320 CrPC where the court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences“compoundable” within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482CrPC or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 CrPC," the court had then said.

Among the factors to be considered in such cases are the nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; the seriousness of the injury, if any; voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; and conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.

The top court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by Suraj Singh Gurjar and another, who submitted that they had settled the dispute with the injured persons by a compromise deed of January 29, 2024 and thus, sought permission for compounding the offence.

The appellants were convicted by the trial court under Sections 323, 324, and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, six months and one year for respective offences.

On December 26, 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court disposed of the criminal appeal of the appellants by maintaining their conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court.

Since the appellants were the cousin of respondents no 2 and 3 and had tendered an unconditional apology regarding the incident, these respondents had agreed to compound the offence. 

Court noted that as far as Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC were concerned, offences under these provisions were compoundable but the offence under Section 324 of the IPC was a non -compoundable offence.

However, "Considering the relevant factors, we have no doubt that the present case, which we are dealing with, is a fit case to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution," the bench said.

In the case, the incident occurred on May 20, 2011, relating to a minor issue where respondent no 2 was trying to tie bullocks to which the appellants objected by saying that it was their land. 

"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," the bench ordered.

Case Title: Suraj Singh Gurjar & Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors