Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
Annamdevula Srinivasa Rao and another - Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 3460 & Batch 1995
Decided on : 11-8-1995
Advocate Appeared:
M/s. M. Laxmana Sarma, A.S. Venkatesh Counsel for the Petitioners.
Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P for the Respondent.
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., cannot direct the subordinate Criminal Courts to permit compounding of offences which are otherwise non-compoundable under the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - INHERENT JURISDICTION - COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES - NON-COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCES - POWER OF HIGH COURT: The High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), cannot direct the subordinate Criminal Courts to permit compounding of offences which are otherwise non-compoundable under the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
Various petitions were filed before the High Court seeking directions to compound a variety of non-compoundable offences, including those under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 494 and 498-A IPC, 307 IPC, and 452 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that it has no power or jurisdiction to direct the subordinate Criminal Courts to permit the parties to compound offences which are otherwise non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., can direct the subordinate Criminal Courts to permit compounding of offences which are otherwise non-compoundable? 2. Whether the High Court can pass any order or issue any direction contrary to the provisions of the Cr.P.C.? 3. Whether the High Court can compel the subordinate Criminal Courts to act in any manner contravening the provisions of the Cr.P.C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 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. 2. The High 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 Cr.P.C. 3. The inherent jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court merely enables the Court to deal with the situation which is not contemplated by the Cr.P.C. to give effect to any order passed under the Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. 4. Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. which deals with compounding of offences is exhaustive in its nature and only those offences can be compounded in accordance with the provisions of Sections 320 of the Cr.P.C. and not in any other manner. 5. The High Court cannot add, vary or amend a statutory provision. The inherent jurisdiction conferred upon this Court merely enables the Court to deal with the situation which is not contemplated by the Cr.P.C. to give effect to any order passed under the Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: All the petitions were dismissed.
In all these Criminal Petitions, a short but interesting and important 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 Misc. Petitions No. 3460 and 3461 of 1994), Section-498-A of the Indian Penal Code (Crl P .No. 277 and Crl. MPs. 932 of 1994 and 2633 and 2685 of 1995), Sections 494 and 498-A I.P.C. (Crl. M.P. No.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 M.P. Nos. 2951 and 2952 of 1995).
3. In Cri. 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 under Section 498-A IPC 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. No. 121 and 122 of 1991 preferred by them are pending before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. Similarly in Crl. M.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 IPC against the accused preferred Crl. A.No. 6 of 1993 and the same is pending before the II Additional B 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 justice.
8. Before analysing the nature and scope of the jur
