Compounding of Offences Section 359

📖 Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667

Facts: The parties to a prosecution for an offence which was not listed as compoundable arrived at a settlement, and the courts were invited to permit a composition on that basis, reliance being placed on earlier decisions in which compositions had been allowed in non-compoundable offences.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the provision governing compounding is exhaustive, and that the bar in the last sub-section — that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section — is absolute. An offence which does not appear in either table cannot be compounded, and no court, including this Court, can permit a composition which the statute does not allow. The Court held that the earlier decisions in which compositions had been permitted in non-compoundable offences had been rendered without reference to the statutory bar and could not be treated as laying down the law. It observed that whether an offence should be compoundable is a matter for the legislature, which has made a considered choice reflected in the tables, and that a court cannot enlarge the list because a settlement appears reasonable on the facts of a particular case.

Ratio: The compounding provision is exhaustive and the bar is absolute. An offence not listed in either table cannot be compounded by any court, and decisions permitting it without reference to the bar are not law.

📖 Ram Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1999) 2 SCC 213

Facts: A composition was sought in respect of an offence falling within the table requiring the permission of the Court, and the question was whether such an offence can be compounded without obtaining that permission, and what the Court must do when permission is sought.

Held: The Supreme Court held that where an offence falls within the table requiring the permission of the Court, that permission is a statutory requirement which cannot be dispensed with: a composition made without it is ineffective, and the Court cannot treat the parties’ agreement as sufficient by itself. In deciding whether to grant permission the Court exercises a judicial discretion: it must satisfy itself that the composition is voluntary and not procured by pressure or inducement, that the person compounding is the person the table names, and that the composition is not opposed to the public interest in the particular case. The Court also held that the observations in certain earlier decisions, which had been read as permitting the composition of non-compoundable offences, could not be understood as authority for that proposition in view of the express statutory bar.

Ratio: Where the table requires the permission of the Court, it cannot be dispensed with and a composition made without it is ineffective. The permission is a judicial discretion, exercised on voluntariness, the competence of the person compounding, and the public interest.

⚠ Where a settlement cannot be given effect

The trial court can do nothing under section 359 where the offence is not in either table. Sub-section (9) is complete, and a composition outside the tables is a nullity.

The only route is a petition to the High Court under section 528 to quash the proceeding on the ground that its continuance would be an abuse of process. That power is not compounding, and section 359(9) does not touch it.

But the High Court’s power is itself confined. It is available for offences predominantly private in character — typically civil disputes given a criminal colour, and commercial, financial, partnership and matrimonial matters — and not for grave offences or those with a serious impact on society.

And where the case cannot be ended at all, the settlement remains a material circumstance for sentence.

The position stated shortly

1. Section 359 contains the entire law on compounding and is a closed scheme: sub-section (9) provides that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.

2. The first table lists offences compoundable without the permission of the Court, by the person the table names as competent to compound.

3. The second table lists offences compoundable only with the permission of the Court before which the prosecution is pending.

4. Where the person competent to compound is under eighteen, an idiot or a lunatic, a person competent to contract on his behalf may compound with the permission of the Court.

5. Where the accused has been committed for trial, or convicted with an appeal pending, no composition is allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed or before which the appeal lies.

6. A High Court or Court of Session in revision may allow a person to compound an offence he is competent to compound.

7. No offence shall be compounded where the accused is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind.

8. The composition has the effect of an acquittal, and the accused cannot afterwards be tried for the offence: section 337 then applies.

9. An offence not in either table cannot be compounded by any court, and decisions permitting it without reference to the bar are not law: Ishwar Singh.

10. Where the second table applies, the permission cannot be dispensed with; a composition without it is ineffective, and the permission is a judicial discretion exercised on voluntariness, competence and the public interest: Ram Lal.