Offence Of Grievous Hurt By Dangerous Weapons(S.326 IPC) Can Be Compromised In Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (today on January 07) observed that while Section 326 (punishment for grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is non-compoundable, the Court can, in exceptional circumstances, invoke its inherent power to give effect to compromise. Such circumstance also includes voluntary settlement between the parties. “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 offense 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.” The Bench of Justices Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale were deciding an application filed in an appeal upholding the conviction of the present petitioner. To provide a brief background, a complaint was filed alleging that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant and his family members, causing grievous injuries. Consequently, the Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offence of grievous hurt. As the matter reached the High Court, it reduced the sentence to one year and instead enhanced the compensation amount. Against this backdrop, the accused person/ petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition. However, the same was dismissed last year in his favour. Pursuant to this, in the very same appeal, the petitioner had filed an application seeking relief for compounding the said offence. It was his case that a compromise was reached between the parties and all the disputes have been amicably resolved. The complainant had also supported the petitioner's case. The Court several factors into consideration including the close proximity within which both the parties reside and that any lingering hostility will affect the neighbourhood. “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 parties are also distantly related, and any lingering hostility is likely to disturb the social fabric of their neighbourhood. 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 Court observed. Apart from this, the Court also highlighted that the support of the complainant in this regard reflects the voluntary nature of this dispute. Thus, in light of these observations, the Court allowed the present application and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. Case Name: H. N. PANDAKUMAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA., MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2667 OF 2024Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 31 Click here to read the judgment

Offence Of Grievous Hurt By Dangerous Weapons(S.326 IPC) Can Be Compromised In Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags