HC Can Permit Compromise Even After Final Judgment If Offence Subsequently Becomes Compoundable: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that even after a criminal revision is finally disposed of, the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to permit compounding of an offence where a subsequent change in circumstances creates a statutory right to compound the offence.Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that although courts ordinarily become functus officio after pronouncing final judgment, “the doctrine of functus officio will yield to justice for which law exists,” particularly where the offence becomes compoundable only after the High Court alters the conviction from a non-compoundable offence to a compoundable one.The Court was dealing with an application seeking composition of offence after the High Court, in a criminal revision, altered the petitioners' conviction from Section 326 IPC to Section 325 IPC and reduced their sentence to six months' simple imprisonment.The case originated from an FIR lodged on March 21, 2010 alleging commission of offences under Sections 326/34 IPC against six accused persons. The trial court convicted all six accused under Section 326/34 IPC and sentenced them to one year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine. The appellate court affirmed the conviction.Subsequently the High Court partly allowed the revision on March 2, 2026 by converting the conviction from Section 326 IPC to Section 325 IPC, thereby making the offence compoundable.Following the judgment, the parties entered into a compromise and filed an application seeking compounding of the offence.The State opposed the plea, arguing that once the High Court had disposed of the revision, it became functus officio and was barred by Section 362 CrPC from altering or reviewing its judgment. Reliance was placed on decisions including P.A. Damodaran v. State, Tanveer Aquil v. State of M.P., and Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa.Rejecting the State's objection, the Court framed the central issue as whether the High Court could permit composition after conviction had attained finality where the right to compound arose only because the revisional court converted the conviction into a compoundable offence.The Court held that the present case involved a distinct factual situation because the right to compound was unavailable earlier due to the conviction under Section 326 IPC, which is non-compoundable.“It would amount to misinterpretation of the intention of the legislature that if some right is conferred to the parties at the same breath, it can also be taken away on the ground of technicalities,” the Court observed.Explaining the scope of the doctrine of functus officio, the Court noted that while a court ordinarily cannot rehear or review a matter after pronouncing final judgment, limited powers survive for doing complete justice in changed circumstances.The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mostt. Simrikhia v. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee, which recognised that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised afresh where there is a subsequent change in circumstances.The Court further observed that the parties settled the dispute only after the conviction was altered to Section 325 IPC and therefore the changed circumstance did not exist when the revision was decided.Justice Mukherjee also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in P. Ramaswamy v. State, where the Apex Court ultimately permitted compounding after conviction under Section 354 IPC.The Court underscored that refusal to entertain the compromise would compel the convicts either to undergo incarceration despite lawful settlement or to approach the Supreme Court for relief.“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,” the Court remarked.Holding that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is “sui generis,” the Court said the High Court could exercise such jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to secure the ends of justice.The Court ultimately disposed of the application by directing that the sentences imposed on the six convicts would not be executed subject to each depositing Rs. 2,500 with the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Authority within six weeks.Case Title: Goutam Saha & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.Case No.: CRAN/2/2026 with CRR/3174/2018Click here to read order

HC Can Permit Compromise Even After Final Judgment If Offence Subsequently Becomes Compoundable: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

HC Can Permit Compromise Even After Final Judgment If Offence Subsequently Becomes Compoundable: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers