A non-compoundable Section 326 conviction may be set aside after an amicable settlement of a private dispute.

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute over the management of a family temple, the petitioner waylaid P.W.1 and attacked him with a sickle, causing injuries.

The trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 341 and 326 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

During the pending revision, the petitioner and P.W.1 appeared before the High Court and filed a joint compromise memo, stating that the dispute had been settled.

Whether the conviction and sentence under Sections 341 and 326 IPC could be set aside in revision in view of the parties’ compromise, despite Section 326 being non-compoundable.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential relief, including cancellation of any bail bond and refund of any fine paid.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. The convictions concerned Sections 341 and 326 IPC; the Court expressly noted that Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable.

In allowing the revision, the Court relied on a Division Bench judgment in Crl.A.(MD) No.579 of 2022 dated 23 January 2026 and orders in Crl.R.C. No.1261 of 2011 dated 27 November 2012 and Crl.R.C. No.114 of 2023 dated 9 July 2025; the judgment does not set out their reasoning.

The Court accepted the parties’ joint compromise memo and their statements in person that the dispute had been settled and that P.W.1 had no objection to setting aside the conviction and sentence.

Although Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable, the Court considered the settlement and its view that the crime was not against society sufficient to allow the revision and set aside the convictions and sentences.

It directed that the joint compromise memo form part of the order, that any fine paid be refunded, and that any bail bond executed by the petitioner stand cancelled.