Point of Law: Unlawful assembly/Dacoity – Quash of criminal proceedings - Accused was only 22 years old as on the date of the incident and no previous conviction has been proved against him - He is the only bread winner of his family.- Incident was the result of some misunderstanding due to political animosity and that the entire dispute has been settled

JUDGMENT :

Can criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offence be quashed at post-conviction stage invoking the power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon a settlement between the convict and the victim ? - is the short point falls for determination in this criminal appeal.

2. The appellant along with six others were prosecuted before the Court below for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 326, 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. on the allegations that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly assaulted CW1 (victim) with an iron pipe causing injury on his head. After full fledged trial, the Court below found the appellant alone guilty of the offence punishable u/s 326 of I.P.C. and he was convicted for the said offence. He was found not guilty of other offences charged. The accused Nos.2 to 7 were found not guilty of all the offences charged against them and they were acquitted. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months vide the impugned judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the above appeal.

3. When the appeal came up for final hearing, the appellant filed Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 under Sections 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings and to set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the entire dispute has been settled between him and the victim. The application has been supported by the affidavit sworn in by the victim.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.C.P.Udayabhanu and the learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Udayakumar K.B.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri.C.P.Udayabhanu submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court deserves to be exercised to quash the entire proceedings in view of the amicable settlement of disputes between the appellant and the victim. The learned counsel further submitted that the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) were of wide magnitude and ramification and the same could be exercised for quashing the criminal proceedings of any kind whether compoundable or non-compoundable at any time, even at post-conviction stage, when the convict and the victim had arrived at a settlement. To fortify his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: Joshi v. State of Haryana [2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)]; Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)]; Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)]; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] and Biju Eappen v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 289).

6. Section 320 is the only statutory provision in Cr.P.C. for compounding an offence and classifies the offences which are simply compoundable and compoundable with permission of the Court [Ss.320(1) and 320(2)]. The law makers never thought of incorporating any specific provision in Cr.P.C. for compounding of offence other than the offences mentioned in Ss.320(1) and 320(2). However, through judicial intervention, the Apex Court found a solution in cases where accusations are non-bailable and non-compoundable holding that recourse to inherent powers u/s 482 would be permissible even in non-compoundable offences for quashing an FIR and/or criminal proceedings and the said power is not controlled or moderated by Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

7. The contentious issue as regards the scope of power exercisable under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when a prayer is made for quashing criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on account of settlement between the parties came up for consideration before the Apex Court initially in Joshi's case (supra). Describing the scope of inherent powers, it was held that S.320 of Cr.P.C does not limit or control exercise of powers vested in th