Retrospective compounding rules do not defeat court-permitted settlement where the offence was compoundable when committed.

An offence under Section 324 IPC committed in 1986 remained compoundable with court permission because the later amendment making it non-compoundable did not apply retrospectively. Since the parties settled the dispute and the injured persons were willing to compound, permission to compound was justified. Composition under Section 320(8) CrPC has the effect of acquittal, so the appellant's compounding operated as an acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 committed before the 2005 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure could be compounded with the permission of the Court, and whether such composition would result in acquittal.

Analysis: The offence was committed in 1986, when Section 324 IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court. The later amendment making the offence non-compoundable came into force on 23 June 2006 and was held inapplicable to the facts. As the parties had settled the dispute and the injured persons expressed their willingness to compound, permission to compound the offence was held to be justified. Under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, composition of the offence has the effect of acquittal.

Conclusion: The offence was held compoundable with the permission of the Court, and the composition operated as an acquittal of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an offence was compoundable on the date of commission, a subsequent amendment rendering it non-compoundable does not apply retrospectively to defeat compounding with court permission; composition under Section 320(8) results in acquittal.

---