Section 333 — Defamation offences are compoundable
English translation
The offences in this Chapter are compoundable offences.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
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 short three-month limitation in Section 332.
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 limitation in Section 332 when planning either a prosecution or a defence.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 262/2565 (2022)
Defamation under Section 326 is an offence against a private individual and is compoundable under Section 333, so a valid compromise between the parties extinguishes the right to prosecute under Section 39(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Court confirmed that defamation in this chapter is a compoundable, private offence under Section 333, so where the parties reach a valid settlement the criminal case is extinguished.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
Frequently asked questions
Is defamation compoundable in Thailand?
Yes. Section 333 makes the defamation offences in this chapter compoundable, so prosecution requires the injured person's complaint and a valid settlement or withdrawal ends the case.
If someone defamed me several times, do I complain once?
No. Where there are several separate defamatory acts, each is a distinct offence and the injured person must lodge a complaint for each one; a count with no complaint cannot be prosecuted.