Compounding of offence under the law in force at the time of remains valid despite later deletion of compoundability.

The SC held that compounding under Section 320 CrPC is confined to offences specified in that provision, and a recorded composition operates as acquittal. Because the offence under Section 324 IPC was compoundable under the law in force on the date of the alleged incident, the later amendment by Act 25 of 2005 deleting its compoundability could not govern the earlier offence. As the parties had voluntarily settled the dispute, compounding remained legally permissible and the appellants were entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to have the offences compounded on the basis of compromise between the parties, and whether the later amendment deleting compoundability of the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code could defeat compounding for an offence committed earlier.

Analysis: Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governs compounding and limits it to the offences specified therein. A composition recorded by the Court has the effect of acquittal. The offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was compoundable under the unamended law when the alleged incident occurred. The amendment brought by Act 25 of 2005, which deleted that entry, came into force much later and could not govern the earlier offence in the facts of the case. Since the parties had voluntarily settled the matter, compounding was legally permissible.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to compounding of the offence and to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence that was compoundable on the date of occurrence may be compounded in accordance with the law then applicable, and a subsequent amendment withdrawing compoundability does not bar compounding for the earlier offence.

---