In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court of India permitted the compounding of a non-compoundable offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasizing the need for judicial discretion in exceptional cases. The case, H.N. Pandakumar vs. State of Karnataka [M.A. No. 2667 of 2024 in SLP(Crl.) No. 895 of 2024], was decided by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, who invoked the Court’s inherent powers to give effect to a voluntary settlement between the parties.
Case Background
The dispute originated from an incident in 2008, where the complainant, Puttaraju, lodged a First Information Report (FIR No. 198/2008) at the K.R. Pete Rural Police Station, Mandya. He alleged that H.N. Pandakumar and four others formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted him and his family members, causing grievous injuries. The chargesheet framed offenses under Sections 143, 341, 504, 323, 324, and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
After a trial in Sessions Case No. 68/2009, the Trial Court convicted Pandakumar under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹2,000. The other accused were either acquitted or faced lesser charges. On appeal, the High Court of Karnataka in 2023 modified the sentence to one year while increasing the fine to ₹2,00,000. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, Pandakumar filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed in January 2024.
Following the dismissal, both parties engaged in settlement discussions facilitated by community elders and reached an agreement to resolve their disputes. This led to Pandakumar filing a Miscellaneous Application before the Supreme Court seeking to compound the offense under Section 326 IPC.
Settlement Details
The settlement, facilitated by intervention from community elders, included the following terms:
1. ₹5,80,000 compensation to the complainant by the petitioner.
2. Resolution of related property disputes, including a contentious right-of-way issue.
3. Commitment by both parties, who are neighbors and distant relatives, to maintain harmony.
The complainant, Puttaraju, supported the application through an impleadment petition, affirming the voluntary nature of the settlement and expressing his desire to end all disputes.
Court’s Observations
The Bench, while acknowledging that Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), observed that the unique circumstances of the case justified an extraordinary approach. It remarked:
“While the offense under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 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 emphasized the need to avoid lingering hostility, especially given the proximity of the parties’ residences. It further noted that the genuine efforts by both sides to settle their disputes reflected a shared commitment to social harmony.
Legal Issues Addressed
1. Compounding Non-Compoundable Offenses:
The judgment highlighted the Court’s discretion to compound non-compoundable offenses in exceptional circumstances. It reiterated that while Section 320 of the CrPC restricts such compounding, the Supreme Court can invoke its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice.
2. Balancing Restorative Justice and Legal Framework:
The Court recognized the importance of restorative justice, particularly in cases where disputes extend beyond the immediate offense and risk disturbing the social fabric.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
1. The conviction under Section 326 IPC was upheld.
2. The sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
3. The offense was allowed to be compounded, effectively bringing closure to the criminal proceedings.
4. All related applications, including the impleadment petition, were disposed of.
The Bench clarified that its decision was based solely on the unique facts and circumstances of the case and should not be treated as a precedent for compounding other non-compoundable offences.
