Section 482 CrPC Inherent Powers Can Override Functus Officio Bar to Accept Post-Revision Offence Compounding: Calcutta High Court
The Court held that statutory technicalities must yield to justice when a change in circumstances occurs after the final disposal of a case.
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has observed that its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be invoked to accept the compounding of an offence even after a revisional application has been finally disposed of and the court has technically become functus officio.
It was held that the rigid statutory bar under Section 362 of the CrPC, which restricts courts from altering or reviewing a signed judgment, must yield ex debito justitiae (for the ends of justice) to prevent the unjust deprivation of personal liberty when a substantial change in circumstances occurs post-judgment.
The Bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed, “The power under section 482 Cr.P.C is sui generis one. Such power is enjoyed by the High Court by virtue of its establishment. Even after disposal of revision, this High Court can exercise such power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and pass order necessary for Ex-debito justitiae. The doctrine of functus officio will yield to justice for which law exists. In order to dispense justice a High Court can exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. and pass necessary order for Ex debitio justitiae. Therefore, even after disposal of the revision, a High Court can accept the compounding and pass necessary order by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., on account of circumstantial change, which was not present before the High Court when the revision was disposed of by this High Court.”
Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacherjee appeared for the Petitioner, while PP Debasish Roy and Advocate Karan Dudhwewala appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The instant connected application was preferred by the petitioners with a prayer for the composition of an offence on the ground of a post-revisional settlement. The genesis of the case dates back to March 2010, when the complainant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against six accused persons.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court, vide its judgment and order, convicted all six accused persons under Section 326/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine of ₹5,000/- each, with a default stipulation.
Aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Appellate Court, vide its judgment and order, affirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied therewith, the petitioners moved a revisional application, before the High Court.
Vide a judgment and order, the High Court partly allowed the revisional application, altered the conviction from Section 326 of the IPC to Section 325 of the IPC, and reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months along with a fine.
Subsequent to the final disposal of the revisional application, the parties entered into a compromise agreement and amicably settled their disputes, prompting the petitioners to file the instant application for compounding of the offence on March 19, 2026.
Contentions of the Parties
The petitioners sought the compounding of the offence and a consequential quietus to the criminal proceedings on the strength of the settlement deed executed between the parties post the final order passed by the High Court in the revisional application. It was implicitly contended that since a settlement had been arrived at between the victim and the convicts, the prayer for composition ought to be allowed to promote peace and harmony.
The State vehemently opposed the prayer for composition and raised a primary objection on the maintainability of the application. It was argued that once a Court passes a final judgment and order, it becomes functus officio and loses jurisdiction over the subject matter. He contended that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) creates an absolute statutory bar against altering or reviewing a judgment after it is signed, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
Observations of the Court
High Court framed the following core issues for determination: (i): Whether the composition of an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could be accepted after the conviction and sentence attained finality through the judgments of the Trial, Appellate, and Revisional Courts, in light of the statutory bar contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
(ii) Whether the High Court, after becoming functus officio upon the delivery of its final judgment in revision, possessed the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to accept such a post-revisional composition and relieve the convicts from undergoing their sentences.
The Court clarified that functus officio denotes that once a court pronounces a final judgment, its authority over that specific matter is exhausted. Consequently, a court cannot rehear a case on merits, alter a decision due to a change of mind, or recall its final order without specific statutory enablement. However, the Court observed that while a functus officio court cannot reopen a case, it retains the limited capacity to entertain prayers authorized by inherent powers or statute to secure justice.
The Court distinguished the present case by highlighting its unique features. The initial conviction was under Section 326 of the IPC, which is a non-compoundable offence. The right to compound the offence accrued to the parties for the first time only after the High Court, vide its revisional order dated March 2, 2026, altered the conviction to Section 325 of the IPC, which is statutorily compoundable.
The Court observed that unlike an Appellate Court, a Revisional Court does not require a lis to be pending to permit compounding, as revisional powers under Section 397 can even be exercised suo motu. Furthermore, Section 320 of the CrPC does not impose an embargo on compounding after the disposal of a case. Therefore, rendering this newly accrued right nugatory on pure technicalities would defeat the intention of the legislature.
"Therefore in a situation like this, what pricks in my conscience is that when the composition under section 325 is statutorily recognized and when the parties have agreed to compound the offence after conversion of conviction from section 326 to 325 by this Court, why the applicants/convicted persons still be compelled to undergo a substantive sentence of incarceration in prison, alternatively they will have to prefer a special leave application before the Apex Court, seeking composition. Since the question of deprivation of liberty arises in case of refusal of composition, recognized by law, such circumstance must be weighed with the Court, while considering the question as to whether powers under section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked in cases like the instant one", the Court said.
The Court disposed of the connected application with the directions that the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the six convicted persons/applicants were directed not to be executed, subject to the fulfillment of a specific condition. Further, each convicted person/applicant was directed to deposit a sum of ₹2,500/- with the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.
It was ordered that in default of such payment by any of the convicts, the individual in default would undergo the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment as approved by the Court in its revisional order.
Cause Title: Goutam Saha & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:359]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacherjee, Advocates Aditya Ratan Tiwary and Arpit Choudhury.
Respondents: PP Debasish Roy and Advocates Karan Dudhwewala, Mukesh Pandey, Rahul Tiwari, Anand Keshari and Bikram Mitra.