IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing and compounding.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 320 - Compoundable offences - Abatement or attempt to commit such offences u/s 34/149 IPC - Also compoundable in same manner. (Para 47)
        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent power to do complete and substantial justice - Should not be exercised as against the express bar of law. (Paras 49 and 51)
        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 320 and 482 - Quashing a proceeding becoming futile after compromise and compounding of offence - Two different things - By quashing a proceeding Court does not convert a non-compoundable offence into a compoundable one (Paras 54, 55 and 57)
        (2003) 4 SCC 675; (2008) 9 SCC 677; (2008) 16 SCC 1; (2011) 10 SCC 705; (1990) 2 SCC 437; 1993 Crl. L.J. 1049; AIR 1999 SC 2554; (2008) 15 SCC 667; (2009) 6 SCC 364; JT 2012 (3) SC 469 - Relied upon
        (2011) 6 SCC 216; (2009) 11 SCC 424; (1945) 47 Bom. L.R. 245; AIR 1959 SC 542; AIR 1945 PC 94; AIR 1964 SC 703; 1966 (Suppl) SCR 477; (1977) 2 SCC 699; (1977) 4 SCC 551; (1980) 1 SCC 43; (2000) 2 SCC 636; (2002) 3 SCC 89; (2009) 6 SCC 351; (2009) 7 SCC 495; (2011) 5 SCC 708; (2008) 4 SCC 582; (2008) 15 SCC 667; (2006) 9 SCC 255; (2001) 10 SCC 504; (2008) 15 SCC 671; 1990 (supp) SCC 681; (1996) 5 SCC 591; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; (1992) 4 SCC 305; (2012) 5 SCC 627; JT 2012 (6) SC 504; (2005) 1 SCC 347; (1999) 2 SCC 213; (2007) 4 CTC 769; 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 856 - Referred
       Facts of the case:
        The crucial issue in this case is the applicability of sections 320 and 482, Cr.P.C. to offences u/ss 120B and 420, IPC.
       Finding of the Court:
        Quashing a proceeding becoming futile after compromise and compounding of offence are two different things.
       Result:
       B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma approved.

Judgement Key Points

High Court's Inherent Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC

The High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or secure the ends of justice (!) (!) (!) . This jurisdiction is not new but preserves pre-existing powers, ensuring they are not limited by other provisions of the Code (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Scope and Limitations - The power must be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only in exceptional circumstances, such as preventing abuse of process or achieving substantial justice (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It cannot override express statutory bars or specific provisions of the Code, nor be used where grievances are redressable under other explicit remedies (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Inherent powers apply where no specific Code provision covers the matter, and their exercise must align with procedural law (!) (!) .

Application to Quashing Proceedings Post-Compromise - The High Court may quash FIRs, complaints, or proceedings under Section 482, even for non-compoundable offences under Section 320(9), if continuation would be futile due to settlement, provided it serves ends of justice and prevents abuse (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Factors include: nature/gravity of offence (heinous crimes like murder/rape generally not quashable); civil flavour (e.g., matrimonial, commercial disputes); remote conviction prospects; and prejudice to accused (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Quashing is distinct from compounding under Section 320; it does not convert non-compoundable offences but ends futile proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Partial quashing (qua specific accused) or application to personal offences may be considered case-by-case (!) .

Guiding Principles - Exercise ex debito justitiae for real justice, considering facts/circumstances without rigid formulas (!) (!) (!) (!) . - No hard-and-fast categories; depends on whether settlement is voluntary/fair, restoring peace without societal harm (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Applies to civil-overtone disputes (e.g., business/partnership) but not societal crimes or public servant offences (!) (!) .

This jurisdiction promotes pragmatism, avoiding oppression while upholding public interest (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.-When the special leave petition in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another came up for hearing, a two-Judge Bench (Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.) doubted the correctness of the decisions of this Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another [(2008) 9 SCC 677] and Manoj Sharma v. State and others [(2008) 16 SCC 1] and referred the matter to a larger Bench. The reference order reads as follows:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 and Section 120B, IPC by the learned Magistrate. He filed an appeal challenging his conviction before the learned Sessions Judge. While his appeal was pending, he filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge for compounding the offence, which, according to the learned counsel, was directed to be taken up along with the main appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR on the ground of compounding the offence. That petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the High Court by its impugned order. Hence, this petition has been filed in this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 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. One of us, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, was a member to the last two decisions.

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, one of the counts on which the petitioner has been convicted, no doubt, is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court in view of Section 320, Cr.P.C. but Section 120B IPC, the other count on which the petitioner has been convicted, is a non-compoundable offence. Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) is a separate offence and since it is a non-compoundable offence, we 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.

We are of the opinion that the above three decisions require to be re-considered as, in our opinion, something which cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. In our, prima facie, opinion, non-compoundable offences cannot be permitted to be compounded by the Court, whether directly or indirectly. Hence, the above three decisions do not appear to us to be correctly decided.

It is true that in the last two decisions, one of us, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, was a member but a Judge should always be open to correct his mistakes. We feel that these decisions require re-consideration and hence we direct that this matter be placed before a larger Bench to reconsider the correctness of the aforesaid three decisions.

Let the papers of this case be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench.”

2. This is how these matters have come up for consideration before us. 3. Two provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Code’) which are vital for consideration of the issue referred to the larger Bench are Sections 320 and 482. Section 320 of the Code provides for compounding of certain offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). It reads as follows:

“S. 320. Compounding of offences.—

(1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) spec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 652

IMPORTANT POINT Quashing and compounding.

Cases Referred (34)

IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing and compounding.