High Court Exercises Inherent Powers to Quash Non-Compoundable Section 326 IPC Conviction Based on Amicable Settlement

The appellants were convicted by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, in S.T. No. 266/2014 for causing grievous injuries to Savitri Bai with an axe following a dispute over erecting a boundary.

Appellant No. 1 was sentenced under Section 326/34 IPC, and Appellant No. 2 under Section 326 IPC, both receiving seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties filed a joint application (I.A. No. 2711/2026) for compounding the offence based on an amicable settlement.

The Principal Registrar verified the compromise, confirming it was voluntary and without coercion.

1. Whether a High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings or set aside a conviction for a non-compoundable offence like Section 326 IPC on the basis of a compromise.

2. Whether the interest of justice warrants the acquittal of the appellants despite the non-compoundable nature of the offence.

The court primarily analyzed Section 326 of the IPC (causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) and Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., which lists compoundable offences.

It relied on Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another (2011), which established that while a court may not permit compounding of non-compoundable offences under Section 320, the High Court may quash proceedings using inherent powers.

It further cited Popular Muthiah v. State of Tamilnadu (2006), holding that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised concurrently with appellate or revisional jurisdiction without a formal application.

The court observed that although Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable, the dispute was private in nature and had been fully resolved through a voluntary settlement.

The court reasoned that since the offence was not of "fatal gravity" or involving significant "moral turpitude," enforcing the sentence would be counterproductive.

It found that rejecting the compromise would create a permanent rift between the parties and impose a lifelong social stigma on the appellants.

Consequently, the court determined that invoking inherent jurisdiction was necessary to achieve "complete justice" and that there was no statutory embargo preventing the High Court from exercising this power during an appeal.

The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.08.2026 passed in S.T. No. 266/2014 was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.

The court ordered the discharge of bail bonds and the refund of any fines deposited.