Supreme Court Allows Compounding of Non‑Compoundable Section 326 Offence After Amicable Settlement; Reduces Sentence to Time Underwent

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale heard an application arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 895 of 2024 in which the petitioner, H. N. Pandakumar, sought compounding of an offence under Section 326 IPC after this Court had earlier dismissed his Special Leave Petition on 19.01.2024. The matter concerned whether the Court would give effect to a post‑dismissal compromise reached between the accused and the complainant in a case that had resulted in conviction for grievous hurt.

The Court allowed the Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 2667 of 2024) and exercised its inherent powers to give effect to the settlement while confirming the conviction. The Court noted the parties had reached an amicable settlement and that the complainant had filed an interlocutory application affirming the compromise. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. While the offence under Section 326 IPC is non‑compoundable 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.” The Court recalled its earlier order dated 19.01.2024 that had dismissed the SLP in limine, confirmed the conviction recorded by the courts below, and reduced the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone.

Background

The dispute arose from FIR No. 198/2008 at K.R. Pete Rural Police Station, Mandya, in which the complainant, Puttaraju, alleged that five accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted him and family members, causing grievous injuries. The Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 68/2009 convicted Accused Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to two years RI with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each; the remaining accused were acquitted. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court partly modified the judgment on 01.09.2023 by reducing the petitioner’s sentence to one year and enhancing the fine to Rs. 2,00,000; Accused No. 4 was acquitted. The petitioner’s Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court on 19.01.2024.

After dismissal of the SLP, the parties reached a settlement mediated by elders and villagers. The petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 5,80,000 as total compensation and to resolve related property and right‑of‑way disputes that had long divided the neighbouring families. The complainant filed Interlocutory Application No. 227010/2024 seeking impleadment in support of compounding and affirming the compromise. The Court took note that the parties lived in close proximity and were distantly related, making continued hostility detrimental to local social fabric. Although Section 326 IPC is ordinarily non‑compoundable under the CrPC, the Court found “unequivocal consent” from the complainant and exceptional circumstances sufficient to permit the exercise of its inherent powers. The Court recalled the earlier order dismissing the SLP, allowed the M.A., confirmed conviction, and ordered that the sentence of one year RI be treated as reduced to the period already undergone. The interlocutory application for impleadment and all pending applications stood disposed of in terms of the order.

Case Details: Case No.: M.A. No. 2667 of 2024 in SLP(Crl.) No. 895 of 2024 Case Title: H. N. Pandakumar v. The State of Karnataka Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the order] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the order]