Exceptional Circumstances: SC Gives Effect To Compromise After Affirming Conviction In Case Involving Offence U/s. 326 IPC
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed a petition seeking a direction for compounding of offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on a compromise reached between the parties after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.
The Apex Court observed that the exceptional circumstances of the case, including the voluntary settlement between the parties, warranted the exercise of the Court’s inherent powers to give effect to the compromise.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant’s unequivocal consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the present M.A.”
AOR Anantha Narayana M.G. represented the Applicant while AOR Vikash Chandra Shukla represented the Respondent.
A Miscellaneous Application was filed before the Apex Court seeking direction for compounding of offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.The original complaint was lodged by the respondent/complainant alleging that the 5 accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant and his family members, causing grievous injuries. The Trial Court convicted the accused. The applicant’s appeal before the Karnataka High Court resulted in reduction his sentence to one year. Aggrieved, the petitioner/applicant approached the Apex Court through the aforementioned Special Leave Petition, which was later dismissed.
The applicant sought relief for compounding the offense under Section 326 IPC, based on a compromise reached between the parties after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. It was the applicant’s case that all the disputes between the applicant/petitioner’s family and the complainant’s family were amicably resolved with the intervention of elders and villagers.
The Bench took note of the fact that the complainant and the petitioner reside in close proximity, with only a road separating their houses, making it essential to maintain a peaceful relationship between the two families. “The compromise covers not only the criminal case but also related property disputes, including the right of way, which had been a point of contention for years. The applicant/petitioner’s commitment to paying the agreed compensation reflects a genuine effort to end the discord and uphold the terms of the settlement”, the Bench said.
In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant’s unequivocal consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory Application, the Bench allowed the Miscellaneous Application. “While the offence under Section 326 IPC is noncompoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, 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”, it held.
Thus, allowing the application, the Bench recalled the order dismissing the SLP in limine. The Bench also confirmed the conviction recorded by the lower Court but reduced the sentence of one year RI to the period already undergone by the Applicant.
Cause Title: H. N. Pandakumar The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 37)
Appearance:
Applicant: AOR Anantha Narayana M.G.
Respondent:AOR Vikash Chandra Shukla, Advocates Aishvary Vikram, Mukul Rathore