Article 333: Defamation offences are compoundable
Statutory text (Thai original)
ความผิดในหมวดนี้เป็นความผิดอันยอมความได้ ถ้าผู้เสียหายในความผิดฐานหมิ่นประมาทตายเสียก่อนร้องทุกข์ ให้บิดา มารดา คู่สมรส หรือบุตรของผู้เสียหายร้องทุกข์ได้ และให้ถือว่าเป็นผู้เสียหาย
English translation
The offences in this Chapter are compoundable offences.
Where the injured person in an offence of defamation dies before making a complaint, the father, mother, spouse or child of the injured person may make the complaint and is deemed to be the injured person.
ThaiLawOnline translation, written from the Thai original and verified
Firm annotation
Section 333 classifies the defamation offences of this chapter as compoundable, a general-part rule rather than an offence in itself. Two consequences follow. First, defamation is an offence against a private individual, so an investigating officer may act only on a proper complaint by the injured person, and a public prosecutor cannot proceed without one. Second, a lawful compromise, withdrawal of the complaint or settlement extinguishes the right to prosecute under the Criminal Procedure Code. Where several separate defamatory acts occur, the injured person must complain about each one, because each is a distinct offence. This mirrors Section 325 for the secrecy offences and works together with the three-month complaint period in Section 96, which applies precisely because the offence is compoundable and which runs from the day the injured person knew both the offence and the offender. Section 332 is not a limitation provision: it is the court's post-conviction power to order the seizure and destruction of the defamatory object and the publication of the judgment. The second paragraph of this section adds that where the injured person dies before making a complaint, the father, mother, spouse or child of the injured person may make the complaint and is deemed to be the injured person.
Why this matters in practice
This is the settlement lever in every defamation case. Because prosecution needs the injured person's complaint, and settlement ends the matter, most defamation disputes are resolved by compromise, often with compensation, a retraction and an apology. For a defendant, negotiating a withdrawal of the complaint is frequently the quickest resolution. Note the procedural traps: if the injured person did not lodge a valid complaint for a particular act, or complained about the wrong instance, that count cannot be pursued. Read Section 333 together with the three-month complaint period in Section 96 when planning either a prosecution or a defence, since that period runs from the day the injured person knew both the offence and the offender, and Section 332 is not the limitation provision but the court's post-conviction power to order seizure and publication. Note also that where the injured person dies before complaining, the second paragraph of this section lets the father, mother, spouse or child complain in their place.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 262/2565 (2022)
Defamation under Section 326 sits in the chapter that Section 333 makes compoundable, so it is an offence against a private individual. But a mediation record that requires the defendant to replace a loan guarantor by a stated date and reserves the injured person's right to prosecute if he does not is not a settlement in law: the injured person did not intend to give up the criminal case there and then. The right to prosecute is not extinguished under section 39 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The mediation record required the defendant to have someone else replace the plaintiff as guarantor of a 1,500,000 baht loan by April 2560, and stated that if he did not, the plaintiff would bring the defamation case within the limitation period. He never did replace the guarantor. The Supreme Court held this was not a settlement in law, so the plaintiff's right to prosecute was not extinguished, and the conviction and the award of damages stood.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 9368/2555 (2012)
Because defamation is compoundable under Section 333, the injured person must lodge a complaint for each separate act of defamation; where no complaint is made for one count, that count cannot be investigated or prosecuted.
The Court found the injured party had not complained about one alleged instance of defamation. As defamation under Section 326 is compoundable under Section 333, the absence of a valid complaint for that count barred investigation and prosecution of it.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 6644/2549 (2006)
Defamation under Sections 326 and 328 is compoundable under Section 333, so an investigating officer may investigate only upon a proper complaint; merely recording an event as evidence, without seeking the offender's punishment, is not a valid complaint.
The Court held that because defamation is compoundable under Section 333, investigation requires a proper complaint. The injured persons had only recorded the matter as evidence rather than lodging a complaint seeking the defendant's punishment.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 3 Supreme Court decisions (2006 to 2022)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 262/2565 (2022)
- Decision 9368/2555 (2012)
- Decision 6644/2549 (2006)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Le plus souvent cité aux côtés de
Sections qui apparaissent le plus souvent dans les mêmes jugements que celui-ci. Le chiffre correspond au nombre de décisions.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
La diffamation est-elle susceptible de transaction en Thaïlande ?
Oui. L'article 333 prévoit que les infractions de diffamation visées dans ce chapitre peuvent faire l'objet d'une transaction, de sorte que les poursuites nécessitent la plainte de la personne lésée et qu'un règlement valable ou un retrait met fin à l'affaire.
Si quelqu'un me diffame à plusieurs reprises, dois-je me plaindre une seule fois ?
Non. Lorsqu'il y a plusieurs actes diffamatoires distincts, chacun constitue une infraction distincte et la personne lésée doit déposer une plainte pour chacun d'eux ; une accusation sans plainte ne peut faire l'objet de poursuites.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Penal Code, s. 333 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 333. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-333/ (accessed 30 août 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.อ. มาตรา 333 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-333/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-333/"><p>The offences in this Chapter are compoundable offences. Where the injured person in an offence of defamation dies before making a complaint, the father, mother, spouse or child of the injured person may make the complaint and is deemed to be the injured person.</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 333 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-333/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.