Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUBHASHAN REDDY
Annamdevula Srinivasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Crl.P. Nos. 3460/93 etc.
Decided On : 01-01-94
Advocates Appeared :
M/s. M. Laxmana Sarma, A.S. Venkatesh
Doctrine of R.M incurriam Applicability.
HELD: The High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot command the subordinate criminal courts to permit the parties to compound an offence which is not otherwise compoundable.
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. is available to be exercised for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse the process of any court, the High Court shall interfere and exercise its jurisdiction to prevent the same. It is also manifestly clear that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall not pass any order or issue any direction contrary to the provisions of the Code. The inherent jurisdiction conferred upon this Court merely enables the Court to deal with the situation which is not contemplated by the code to give effect to any order passed under the Code. This inherent power of the High Court can never be exercised compelling the subordinate criminal courts to act in any manner contravening the provisions of the Code. Such an order can never be termed as an order passed to prevent the abuse of the process of any court. It cannot also be said that such order would secure the ends of justice. Every legal power has its own limitations. There is nothing like unlimited power. So also the power conferred upon this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The legislative mandate enshrined in Section 320 (9) of the Code is manifestly clear. It is couched in a mandatory form. This court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code cannot add vary or amend a statutory provision. Sec.320 of the Code which deals with compounding of offences is exhaustive in its nature and only those offences can be compounded in accordance with the provisions of Section 320 of the Code and not in any other manner.
Parliament, in its wisdom, thought that only certain offences specified under section 320 of the Code alone can be compounded and no other offences. Variety of factors must have been taken into consideration by the Parliament in limiting the offences which can be compounded. It is not possible for this court to ascertain as to what were the legislative inputs in enacting Section 320 in to the code of Criminal Procedure. Parliament knows better as to what facts constitute an offence and as to whether such an offence should be compounded. It is a matter of social policy concerning social order. May be, parliament thought that such of those offences which are not compoundable under the Code are offences where larger interests of the society is involved. Any orders passed by this Court directing the subordinate criminal courts to compound the offence which are not otherwise compoundable would amount to compelling the subordinate criminal courts to act in contravention of law, such directions would be destructive of the Rule of Law.
( 1 ) IN all these criminal petitions, a short but interesting and importing question of law arises for consideration of this Court as to whether this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ), can direct the subordinate criminal courts to accord permission to compound an offence which is otherwise non-compoundable under the Code ?
( 2 ) DIRECTIONS are sought from this Court to compound variety of non-compoundable offences such as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Criminal Petitions Nos. 3460 and 3461 of 1994), Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (Crl. P. No. 277 and 932 of 1994 and 2633 and 2685 of 1995), Sections 494 and 498-A, I. P. C. (Crl. Ps. Nos. 748 of 1994 and 1662 of 1995), Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (Crl. M. P. No. 1182/94), Section 452, I. P. C. (Crl. Petns. Nos. 2951 and 2952 of 1995 ).
( 3 ) IN Crl. P. No. 277 of 1994, the petitioner-accused was already convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattenapalli by judgment dated 8-4-1993 for the offence u/s. 498-A, I. P. C. and Crl. A. No. 36 of 1993 preferred by him was pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Khammam. In Crl. Petitions Nos. 3460 and 3461 of 1993, the petitioners-accused in the said cases were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year and pay fine for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry in C. C. Nos. 74 and 75 of 1990 and the appeals - Cr. A. Nos. 121 and 122 of 1991 preferred by them are pending before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. Similarly in Crl. P. No. 1182 of 1994 3rd petitioner who is the accused in S. C. No. 327 of 1992 was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar for the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. against the accused preferred Crl. A. No. 6 of 1993 and the same is pending before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the offences which are subject-matter of the proceedings in the Courts below are non-compoundable offences. CAN THIS COURT GIVE DIRECTIONS TO THE SUBORDINATE CRIMINAL COURTS TO PERMIT COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES WHICH ARE OTHERWISE NON-COMPOUNDABLE UNDER SECTION 482, Cr. P. C. ?
( 5 ) IN view of the importance of the question of law involved, I have requested Shri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae and accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel assisted the Court.
( 6 ) THE learned Senior Counsel submits that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot direct compounding of offences which are otherwise non-compoundable. The learned counsel submits that in the absence of specific provisions, no Court can grant permission to compound any non-compoundable offence. It is submitted that the compounding of offences is specifically regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure and any direction in this regard by the High Court to compound the offence which is non-compoundable, would be against the public policy and therefore wholly barred.
( 7 ) BEFORE adverting to the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel, it would be appropriate to make a brief survey with regard to the nature, scope and power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. It is fairly well settled that Section 482 of the Code does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It merely safeguards the existing inherent powers possessed by the Court necessary to secure the ends of justice. The power is to be sparingly used. The power is conferred upon the High Court to pass orders that may be necessary to give effect to any order passed under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Necessary orders can always be made by invoking this provision to secure the ends of j
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
