Section 321: Compoundable liberty offences
Statutory text (Thai original)
ความผิดตามมาตรา ๓๐๙ วรรคแรก มาตรา ๓๑๐ วรรคแรก และมาตรา ๓๑๑ วรรคแรก เป็นความผิดอันยอมความได้
English translation
The offences under Section 309 paragraph one, Section 310 paragraph one and Section 311 paragraph one are compoundable offences.
ThaiLawOnline translation, written from the Thai original and verified
Firm annotation
Section 321 fixes which offences in this Title on offences against liberty may be compounded, and it names three: Section 309 paragraph one (basic coercion), Section 310 paragraph one (basic deprivation of liberty) and Section 311 paragraph one (causing deprivation of liberty by negligence). Everything else in the Title falls outside it. The aggravated paragraphs of Section 309 are excluded, covering a weapon, five or more persons acting together, a document of right, or invoking the authority of a secret society or criminal association. So are the result-aggravated second paragraphs of Sections 310 and 311, which apply where the deprivation of liberty causes death or grievous bodily harm, and the ransom, sexual-purpose, abduction and cross-border offences in Sections 312 to 319. Being compoundable makes the offence a personal offence: a valid settlement by the injured person extinguishes the right to bring the criminal case under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the injured person must complain within three months of learning of the offence and the offender under Section 96. The effect is on whether the case can proceed at all, not merely on the sentence.
Why this matters in practice
Compoundability decides whether a case can be ended by settlement, so the exact paragraph charged is what matters. If the conduct fits basic coercion (Section 309 paragraph one), basic confinement (Section 310 paragraph one) or negligent deprivation of liberty (Section 311 paragraph one), a settlement properly made by the injured person extinguishes the prosecution. Once the facts add a weapon, a group of five or more, or a death or grievous-harm result, the charge moves into a paragraph that cannot be settled and no agreement will stop it. This is why prosecutors and complainants frame the facts to include or exclude aggravating circumstances, and why a defendant should confirm the charged paragraph before paying for a settlement that may not end the case. Note also the three-month complaint deadline under Section 96 that comes with any compoundable offence. For a minor, a settlement made on their behalf by a lawful representative can be valid. Confirm the precise charge through online consultation with a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1288/2564 (2021)
Joint unlawful confinement under the first paragraph of Section 310 is a compoundable offence under Section 321, so a valid settlement by the injured party extinguishes the right to prosecute.
The two defendants agreed to pay compensation to the second injured person, the father of the first injured person, who was a minor, and they performed that agreement. The Supreme Court held this amounted to the father settling on the minor's behalf as her lawful representative, so, joint confinement depriving another of bodily liberty under Section 310 paragraph one being compoundable under Section 321, the right to prosecute that offence was extinguished. Being a question of public order, the point was taken by the Court itself and applied to the co-defendant who had not appealed.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 693/2559 (2016)
Where coercion under Section 309 is committed with a weapon and by five or more persons acting together, it falls under the second paragraph and is not a compoundable offence under Section 321, so a settlement cannot extinguish the prosecution.
The court held that coercion committed with a weapon and by five or more persons acting together is an offence under the second paragraph of Section 309, which is not a personal or compoundable offence under Section 321. The right to prosecute therefore could not be extinguished by settlement under the Criminal Procedure Code, in contrast to the compoundable first paragraph.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5521/2537 (1994)
Coercion under the first paragraph of Section 309 is a compoundable offence under Section 321, so where the injured party informs the court of no wish to prosecute, that amounts to settlement and the right to prosecute is extinguished.
The evidence showed only that the defendant had threatened the victim into going with him, which constituted an offence under the first paragraph of Section 309. Because that paragraph is compoundable under Section 321, and the victim had filed a request stating no wish to prosecute on any charge before the case became final, this was treated as settlement of a personal offence and the right to prosecute was extinguished under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 8 Supreme Court decisions (1962 to 2021)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 22714/2555 (2012)
- Decision 2031/2525 (1982)
- Decision 2279/2521 (1978)
- Decision 609/2505 (1962)
- Decision 693/2559 (2016)
- Decision 5521/2537 (1994)
- Decision 1288/2564 (2021)
- Decision 188/2537 (1994)
This list is selected automatically, weighted towards judgments that turn on this section rather than ones that merely recite it when passing sentence. It has not yet been reviewed by the firm.
Most often cited alongside
- Section 310 5
- Section 83 4
- Section 91 4
- Section 78 4
- Section 309 4
- Section 288 4
Sections that appear in the same judgments as this one most often. The figure is the number of decisions.
Counted across the firm's corpus of 83,652 Supreme Court decisions, 1921 to 2026. The count is complete; the stated year range trims rare outliers so it describes where the citations actually sit. These figures are computed by us and are not official court statistics. How we count these, and what we measured
Frequently asked questions
Which liberty offences can be settled under Section 321?
Three: basic coercion under Section 309 paragraph one, basic deprivation of liberty under Section 310 paragraph one, and negligently causing deprivation of liberty under Section 311 paragraph one. The aggravated paragraphs and the purpose-based offences in Sections 312 to 319 are not compoundable.
Why does the exact paragraph of Section 309 matter?
Because only the first paragraph is compoundable. If a weapon or a group of five or more is involved, the offence falls under the second paragraph, which cannot be settled to end the prosecution.
What is the effect of a valid settlement in a compoundable case?
A proper settlement by the injured party extinguishes the right to bring the criminal case, so the prosecution cannot continue. The effect is on the case itself, not merely on the sentence.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 321 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 321. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-321/ (accessed 17 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 321 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-321/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-321/"><p>The offences under Section 309 paragraph one, Section 310 paragraph one and Section 311 paragraph one are compoundable offences.</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 321 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-321/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.