S.320 CrPC | No Automatic Acquittal On Mere Filing Of Application By Complainant For Compounding Of Offence: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday laid down that mere filing of an application by the complainant for compounding of offences alleged does not automatically result in acquittal of accused.

Bench of Justice K. Babu noted that Section 320 CrPC categorizes offences into two parts- Under Sub-section (1), certain offences have been listed which can be compounded without the permission of the Court. Under Sub-section (2), certain offences are listed, which can be compounded only with the permission of the Court.

The judge explained that composition of a compoundable offence under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. would be complete as soon as the Court accepts it upon being satisfied that the composition is voluntary, genuine and true. The same would have the effect of acquittal of the accused even if the person by whom offence may be compounded later resiled from the composition. 

However, as regards the offences which are compoundable only with the permission of the Court, as under Section 320(2), the composition would not have any effect unless and until the Court grants such composition. 

"I hold the view that even in the case of offences compoundable without the permission of the Court, the satisfaction of the Court as to whether the composition is genuine, true and voluntary is essential. Necessarily, when the Court satisfies itself that the composition is true, genuine and voluntary, the composition shall have the effect of acquittal. 

...in cases governed by Sub-section (2) of Section 320, the offences are of the nature which affect not only the interest of the individual but also the interests of the society as a whole. As far as the aggrieved party is concerned, the position seems to be the same regardless of the fact that the offence alleged is compoundable with or without the permission of the Court. In cases governed by Sub-section (2), the Magistrate has to perform the judicial act of deciding whether the parties should be allowed to compromise in the interest of justice. Unless and until the Court has given its sanction,the so called composition has no legal effect and cannot be taken cognizance of by any Court dealing with the offence. Such a composition is ineffective and does not deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to try the case," the Court observed. 

The prosecution case was that the petitioner had collected Rs.6,10,000/- from the 1st respondent, who is the de facto complainant, on a false promise to arrange a job visa to Australia. He was accordingly charged with offences under Sections 406 ('Punishment for criminal breach of trust') and 420 ('Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property') of IPC. 

It is noticed that during the tage of the investigation, the petitioner and the de facto complainant settled their differences, and the latter filed petition seeking composition of the offences along with an application seeking leave of the Court to permit her to compound the offences. She also filed a statement before the Investigating Officer that she had settled the dispute and did not intend to prosecute the offence.

Subsequently, the de facto complainant submitted before the Magistrate that she was not pressing the application seeking composition, and her application was thereby dismissed as not pressed. 

It was contended by Advocates Prabhu K.N., and Manumon A. that an application seeking composition under Section 320 Cr.P.C., having been filed by the victim, could not have been withdrawn since the moment it is filed, the same shall have the force of acquittal. 

The Public Prosecutor however, argued that the filing of the application seeking composition having the force of acquittal at the moment it is filed ought to be only in case of offences compoundable without the leave of the Court and that in case of offences where leave of the Court is required, only after granting of leave, a judicial act of deciding whether,in the interest of justice, the parties should be allowed to compound, shall it have the force of acquittal. 

The Amicus Curiae K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan submitted that a petition seeking composition of the offence could not be withdrawn in as much as it has the immediate effect of acquittal of the accused. It was added that unilateral withdrawal of consent by one party, especially after the other party performed his part of the terms in the agreement, could not be permitted, and that the Court thus ought not to have permitted the victim to withdraw the application seeking composition.

Perusing Section 320 of Cr.P.C. which provides for 'compounding of offences', the Court observed that composition is a unilateral act, and that a joint appliation by the accused and the victim would not be required in such a case. 

Addressing the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that a petition for composition would have the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8), the Court observed, 

"In the normal course, the Court accepts the assertion of the complainant that he has compounded the offence. If the Court is satisfied that the composition is voluntary, genuine and true, it has no other option but to accept it, and then the composition has the effect of acquittal. In such a case, the complainant cannot later resile from the composition". 

However, it added that in case of offences compoundable with the permission of the Court, unless and until the Court grants permission, the composition would not have any consequences. 

In the present case, the Court noted that the offences were compoundable with the permission of the Court. 

The Court observed that the circumstances under which the de facto complainant had resiled from the composition of the offences had not been placed before the Court. It further noted that the petitioner had failed to place any sufficient material to quash the proceedings before the Magistrate. 

It thereby disposed the plea granting liberty to the victims to move a petition seeking composition of the offences alleged. 

Government Pleader G. Sudheer also appeared in the present case. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 597 

Case Title: Johnson Stephen v. Chinchumol & Anr. 

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 1896 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Order