Compounding of Offences Under Section 359 BNSS — Compoundable and Non-Compoundable Offences Explained

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Introduction

Not every criminal case has to end in a trial and a verdict. For a defined category of offences, the law permits the complainant and the accused to resolve the matter between themselves, bringing the prosecution to a close. This is called compounding of an offence, and it is governed today by Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — the direct successor to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Compounding is often confused with the High Court’s power to quash an FIR or proceeding on the basis of a settlement, which this site has covered separately in relation to Section 528 BNSS. The two are related but legally distinct routes, and this article explains both what Section 359 BNSS provides and how it differs from quashing.

What Section 359 BNSS Says

Section 359 appears in Chapter XXVI of the BNSS and sets out, in substance, a structured scheme built around two Tables of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):

Sub-section (1) lists offences that may be compounded without the permission of the court, by the person specified against each offence.
Sub-section (2) lists offences that may be compounded only with the permission of the court before which the prosecution is pending, again by the person specified against each offence.
Sub-section (3) extends the same treatment to the abetment of a compoundable offence, an attempt to commit it (where the attempt is itself punishable), and to liability arising under Section 3(5) or Section 190 of the BNS.
Sub-section (4) allows compounding on behalf of a person who is a minor, of unsound mind, or deceased, through a guardian or legal representative, with the court’s permission or consent.
Sub-section (5) requires the leave of the court before any composition once the accused has been committed for trial, or has been convicted and an appeal is pending.
Sub-section (6) permits a High Court or Court of Session, while exercising its revisional power under Section 442 BNSS, to allow compounding of an offence that the person concerned is otherwise competent to compound.
Sub-section (7) bars compounding altogether where a previous conviction exposes the accused to enhanced punishment or a punishment of a different kind.
Sub-section (8) provides that a valid composition has the effect of an acquittal of the accused in respect of the compounded offence.
Sub-section (9) closes the scheme: no offence may be compounded except as provided by Section 359 itself.

This last point matters. Compounding is not a general power to settle any criminal case privately — it applies only to the offences that Parliament has specifically listed in the two Tables. An offence that does not appear in either Table is, by that fact, non-compoundable.

The Two Categories of Compoundable Offences

Compoundable Without Permission of the Court

The first Table covers relatively less serious offences, mostly affecting private individuals, where the person wronged is trusted to decide whether to pursue the matter further. Representative entries — illustrative, not an exhaustive list — include:

Voluntarily causing hurt (BNS Section 115(2)) — compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused.
Theft (BNS Section 303(2)) — compoundable by the owner of the property stolen.
Cheating (BNS Section 318(2)) — compoundable by the person cheated.
Criminal trespass (BNS Section 329(3)) — compoundable by the person in possession of the property trespassed upon.
Simple defamation (BNS Section 356(2)) — compoundable by the person defamed.

For these offences, the complainant may compound the case directly, without seeking the court’s leave, though the court before which the case is pending must still record the composition and dispose of the matter accordingly.

Compoundable Only With Permission of the Court

The second Table covers offences that are somewhat more serious, or that carry a greater element of public interest, so the law requires a judicial check before the case is allowed to end by private settlement. Representative entries include:

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt (BNS Section 117(2)) — compoundable by the person injured, with the court’s permission.
Criminal breach of trust (BNS Section 316(2)) — compoundable by the owner of the property in respect of which the offence was committed, with the court’s permission.

Here, even if both sides are willing, the court must independently permit the composition. Courts examine such requests on the facts, including the nature of the injury or loss, the voluntariness of the settlement, and whether allowing composition would be consistent with the interests of justice — the statute gives the court a discretion, not a rubber stamp.

Offences Outside Both Tables

Any offence that does not fall in either Table — for example, serious offences against the human body and offences that the legislature has treated as having a strong public-interest or societal element — is non-compoundable. Such an offence cannot be closed by private agreement between the complainant and the accused under Section 359, however genuine the settlement.

Who May Compound, and the Conditions That Apply

Section 359 identifies, offence by offence, exactly who is competent to compound — typically the person against whom the offence was committed, or the owner of the property affected. Beyond this, several conditions apply across both Tables:

Abetment and attempt of a compoundable offence may be compounded in the same manner as the substantive offence.
Where the person competent to compound is a minor, of unsound mind, or has died, a guardian or legal representative may compound on their behalf, but only with the court’s permission or consent.
Once the accused has been committed for trial, or stands convicted with an appeal pending, composition requires the leave of the court seized of the committal or the appeal — a plain settlement between the parties is no longer enough at that stage.
A High Court or Court of Session, acting in revision under Section 442 BNSS, may itself permit a person to compound an offence that they are otherwise competent to compound.
Compounding is barred where the accused’s previous conviction would expose them to enhanced or different punishment for the offence in question.

Effect of Compounding — Acquittal

Under Section 359, a valid composition of an offence has the effect of an acquittal of the accused in respect of that offence. This is a meaningful distinction from a simple withdrawal of a complaint: compounding, once validly recorded by the court, formally concludes the prosecution as an acquittal on that charge, rather than leaving the matter open to be revived.

Compounding vs Quashing: How Section 359 Differs from Section 528 BNSS

Compounding under Section 359 BNSS is frequently confused with the High Court’s power to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding under Section 528 BNSS (the successor to Section 482 CrPC), which this site has discussed separately. The two serve related but distinct purposes:

Compounding (Section 359 BNSS) is a statutory, offence-specific power, exercised by the trial court (or, in revision, by the Sessions Court or High Court under Section 442 BNSS), confined strictly to the offences listed in the two Tables and to the persons named against them.
Quashing (Section 528 BNSS) is an inherent power of the High Court alone, exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. It is not limited to the offences listed under Section 359, and in appropriate cases — subject to well-settled limits — a High Court may quash proceedings even in respect of offences that are not compoundable, where the underlying dispute is essentially private in nature and a genuine settlement has been reached.

The Supreme Court addressed this distinction directly in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, holding that the power of a criminal court to compound an offence under Section 320 CrPC (now Section 359 BNSS) is “materially different” from the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). The Court explained that when a High Court quashes a proceeding involving a non-compoundable offence on the strength of a settlement, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, it is not thereby permitting compounding of an offence that the statute has made non-compoundable — the two powers rest on different legal foundations and are governed by different tests.

In short: whether an offence can be compounded is decided entirely by whether it appears in Section 359’s Tables; whether a proceeding can be quashed on the basis of a settlement is a separate inquiry into the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, governed by its own body of case law.

Practical Points

Check the Table first. Whether an offence can be compounded at all — and whether court permission is needed — depends entirely on where, if anywhere, it appears in the two Tables to Section 359 BNSS.
Compounding happens before the court seized of the case. The application to record a composition is made to the trial court (or, after committal or during appeal, to the court holding the committal or appeal), not informally outside the court record.
A private compromise is not, by itself, an acquittal. Only a composition recorded under Section 359 — or a quashing order under Section 528 BNSS — brings the desired legal finality; an out-of-court settlement that is never placed before the court leaves the prosecution technically alive.
Previous convictions can block compounding. Where an earlier conviction would expose the accused to enhanced punishment, Section 359(7) bars composition outright.
A person considering an application to compound, or seeking to understand whether a particular offence qualifies, may consider consulting a qualified advocate for advice on the specific facts.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.