An non-compoundable offences cannot be permitted to be compounded by the Court, whether directly or indirectly.

The Supreme Court of India on 23-11-2010, in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another held that the Court must maintain the judicial restrain and should not do indirectly such thing which can not be done directly.
While deciding the matter the Apex Court observed the three decisions of this Court, all by two Judge Benches.They are B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2008) 9 SCC 677; and Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others (2008) 16 SCC 1. In these decisions, this Court has indirectly permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. Section 320, Cr.P.C. mentions certain offences as compoundable, certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the Court, and the other offences as non-compoundable vide Section 320(7). Section 420, IPC is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court in view of Section 320, Cr.P.C. but Section 120B IPC is a non-compoundable offence. Section 120B(criminal conspiracy) is a separate offence and since it is a non-compoundable offence, the court cannot permit it to be compounded. The Court cannot amend the statute and must maintain judicial restraint in this connection. The Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or executive. It is the legislature alone which can amend Section 320 Cr.P.C. The Court opined that something which cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. An non-compoundable offences cannot be permitted to be compounded by the Court, whether directly or indirectly.