The pursuit of justice often involves navigating a complex legal landscape. Within criminal law, the "compounding of offences" offers a distinctive resolution, particularly when involved parties reach a mutual agreement. This process, where the complainant consents to withdraw charges against the accused, presents an alternative to a traditional adversarial trial.

Fundamentally, the compounding of an offence represents a compromise. It occurs when the aggrieved party, having experienced harm from the alleged offence, decides to resolve the matter outside of court. This decision often arises from a desire for an amicable resolution, potentially including restitution or other forms of reconciliation.

Indian law, specifically the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, recognizes the validity of compounding certain categories of offences. Section 359 of the BNSS provides a comprehensive framework, specifying which offences are compoundable and by whom.

The legal system broadly divides offences into two categories: compoundable and non-compoundable. Compoundable offences are further divided into those requiring court permission and those that can be compounded without it. This classification is based primarily on the severity of the offence and its potential impact on society. Generally, less serious offences, often involving private disputes, are more likely to be compoundable.

Section 359 of the BNSS meticulously lists the specific offences that can be compounded. This list serves as a vital reference for legal professionals and individuals seeking to understand their options. Offences such as voluntarily causing hurt (Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, wrongful restraint (Section 126(2) BNS), and defamation (Section 356 BNS) are often included among compoundable offences.

The compounding process typically involves submitting an application to the court, either jointly by the complainant and the accused or solely by the complainant. If the offence requires court permission, the court will assess the application's merits, considering factors such as the settlement's voluntariness, the nature of the offence, and the interests of justice. If satisfied, the court may grant permission for compounding, leading to the accused's acquittal.

It is crucial to note that certain severe offences with a significant impact on society are non-compoundable. These include offences like murder, rape, and dacoity. This exclusion is based on the principle that the state has a vested interest in prosecuting serious crimes, and private settlements should not override the broader societal concern for justice and deterrence.
The court's power in compounding matters is significant.

Even when an offence is technically compoundable, the court retains the discretion to deny permission if it believes that compounding would not serve justice. This safeguard ensures the process is not misused and that all stakeholders' interests are protected.

In essence, the compounding of offences offers a pragmatic approach to resolving specific criminal matters. It acknowledges the possibility of amicable settlements and provides a legal framework for them. However, this mechanism is carefully circumscribed to ensure judicious application and to prevent undermining the fundamental principles of criminal justice. The distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences, along with court oversight, strikes a balance between facilitating private settlements and upholding the state's responsibility to address criminal wrongdoing.

Procedure of Compounding:

• If an offence is eligible for compounding as per Section 359 of the BNSS, then the act of instigating that offence (abetment), or attempting to commit that offence (provided the attempt itself constitutes an offence), can also be compounded in a similar manner. This principle extends to situations where the accused is held liable under sub-section (5) of section 3 or section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; these instances are also subject to compounding under the same conditions.
   
• In cases where the individual normally authorized to compound an offence is a minor or suffers from a mental disability, another person legally empowered to enter into contracts on their behalf can compound the offence. However, this action requires the explicit permission of the relevant Court.
   
• Similarly, if the person who would typically be able to compound an offence has passed away, their legal representative (as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) may, with the Court's approval, compound the offence. This ensures that the opportunity for resolution remains even after the death of the potential complainant.
   
• Once an accused individual has been formally committed for trial, or if they have been convicted and are currently awaiting an appeal, the composition of the offence is not permitted without the explicit consent of the Court to which the individual was committed or the Court before which the appeal is scheduled to be heard. This safeguards the integrity of ongoing legal proceedings.
   
• A High Court or a Court of Session, while exercising its revisional powers under section 442, holds the authority to permit any individual to compound an offence, provided that the person is otherwise qualified to compound that specific offence as outlined within this section.
   
• Finally, it is crucial to note that no offence can be compounded if the accused is subject to an enhanced punishment, or a punishment of a different nature, due to a prior conviction for the same offence. Furthermore, the act of compounding an offence under this section is legally equivalent to an acquittal for the accused individual with whom the offence was compounded. Ultimately, no offence can be compounded unless explicitly authorized by the provisions of this section.

When Settlements Aren't Enough - Dealing with Non-Compoundable Offences:

• Not all legal problems can be solved through a simple agreement. Some crimes are considered too serious for this type of resolution. These are called non-compoundable offences (like murder, rape, or kidnapping). In these cases, the law requires a full legal prosecution, regardless of whether the victim and the accused have reached a private understanding.
   
• However, even with non-compoundable offences, there's still room for a "settlement in mitigation." This doesn't mean the charges are dropped. Instead, the accused might offer compensation or express remorse. The court can then consider these factors when deciding on a sentence. This means a potentially lighter punishment, though the prosecution will still proceed. Mitigation does not lead to acquittal.

Bounced Checks - A Special Case for Settlement:

Bounced checks are common problems. Legally, they can be a criminal offence. However, the core issue is usually a financial one. Because of this, the law allows for these cases to be settled (or "compounded").

Specifically, Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allows for the compounding of bounced check offences. This acknowledges that recovering the money owed is usually the main goal. A settlement usually involves the accused paying the amount owed, plus any agreed-upon fees. Once the payment is made, the court can record the settlement and drop the charges. It offers a practical way to resolve financial disputes arising from cheque bounce cases.

Traffic Tickets - Streamlining Enforcement with Compounding:

• Traffic violations are common and are usually handled with fines (traffic challans). The Motor Vehicles Act has ways to punish these offences. The law allows for the settling (compounding) of certain traffic offences on the spot by traffic police officers when dealing with minor offences, such as the offender paying a predetermined compounding amount, sparing them from further legal action.
• Often, traffic police can settle minor offences on the spot by collecting a fine. This avoids needing to go to court for minor things like speeding or parking violations. Paying the fine resolves the issue.
• For some traffic offences, the law says that if you pay a certain amount, you won't face further legal action. This speeds up the process and allows the legal system to focus on more serious offences. However, severe traffic violations (like drunk driving or causing accidents) cannot be settled in this way and require full legal proceedings.

In short, settlements are useful for resolving some criminal matters, but not all. Non-compoundable offences need to go through the courts, although remorse or compensation can influence the sentence. Bounced checks have special rules that allow for settlements to recover the money owed. And traffic tickets often involve quick settlements (fines) for minor violations. Understanding these differences is key to navigating the legal system.

Mitigating Circumstances:

Mitigating circumstances are factors that, while not justifying or excusing a crime, can lessen its severity or the offender's responsibility, potentially leading to a lighter sentence. These factors often relate to the defendant's history, mental condition, or the context of the crime. An example would be a first-time, young offender committing a non-violent crime due to peer pressure, which a court might consider when determining their sentence.

Power of Court to Compound Non-Compoundable Offence:

The Supreme Court has consistently addressed the issue of quashing criminal proceedings in cases involving non-compoundable offences. Landmark judgments like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), presided over by Justices R.M. Lodha and F.M.I. Kalifulla, and H.N. Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka (2025), decided by Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, have affirmed the principle that such offences generally cannot be settled through compounding under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS.

However, the Court has also acknowledged the existence of extraordinary circumstances where it can exercise its inherent powers. Under Section 528 of the BNSS or Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may quash proceedings if a compromise has been reached between the involved parties. This discretion is exercised to secure the ends of justice, carefully considering factors such as the severity and nature of the offence, as well as the nature of the relationship between the victim and the accused.

Is Compounding of an Offence the Same as Acquittal?

Indeed, when an offence is formally compounded, it is generally considered equivalent to an acquittal for the accused party concerning that specific offence. This principle is codified in legal statutes, such as Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (mirrored as Section 359(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which clearly stipulates that settling an offence through compounding effectively acquits the accused individual with whom the offence was compounded. This provision essentially closes the legal chapter on the matter for that person.

This acquittal, achieved through compounding, carries similar weight to an acquittal delivered after a trial. It represents a definitive legal conclusion to the proceedings against the accused, specifically concerning the compounded offence. The impact of this is that the accused cannot be subjected to a retrial for the same offence, based on the same set of facts. This prevents the reopening of the case and ensures finality to the settlement.

In essence, the legal effect of compounding is to provide a final resolution that is mutually acceptable to the parties involved. It acknowledges the settlement they have reached and imbues it with the authority of a judicial declaration of acquittal. This not only brings closure to the specific case but also reinforces the legal system's recognition of amicable resolutions in certain types of offences.

Conclusion:
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 establishes a legal framework in India that allows for the compounding of certain minor offences, offering a resolution through mutual consent instead of lengthy trials and promoting reconciliation. This framework, however, carefully excludes serious crimes with broader societal impact.

Despite this, the potential for "settlement in mitigation" for non-compoundable offences, along with the Supreme Court's inherent powers, demonstrates a nuanced pursuit of justice that considers individual circumstances and encourages amicable resolutions when feasible, as exemplified by cases involving bounced checks and minor traffic infractions.

Although Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (previously Section 320 CrPC), specifically enumerates compoundable offences, the High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), can still nullify proceedings even for non-compoundable offenses.

This power is typically exercised when the parties have reached an amicable resolution, and the High Court believes it is essential to ensure justice or prevent the misuse of legal procedures, provided the court acts with caution and carefully considers the nature and severity of the crime and its societal consequences.

When all involved parties reach a settlement in cases that cannot be compounded, the Supreme Court retains the power to quash legal proceedings, utilizing its authority under either Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) or Article 142 of the Constitution.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565

Also Read:

• Brief on Compounding of Offences Under Companies Act 2013
• Jharkhand HC Allows Compounding Of Offences At Appellate Stage And Sets Aside Judgment Of Conviction