Hon'ble GOMBER, J.—The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of FIR No. 121/2012 lodged by complainant-respondent No. 2 at P.S. JDA, Jaipur registered for offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter alive for trial and, therefore, prayed that this petition may be allowed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Manoj Sharma vs. State and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing on behalf of complainant-respondent No. 2 corroborate the fact of arriving at compromise.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for complainant-respondent No. 2, and perused the material available on record as well as the case law cited on the subject.

5. In the judgment in the case of Manoj Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings of an FIR under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, held that except Section 420 IPC, which could be compounded with the permission of the Court, other offences under Sections 406 and 120B IPC, mentioned in FIR, could not even be compounded with the permission of the Court and that High Court or even Supreme Court would not ordinarily be justified in doing something indirectly which could not be done directly. But the Apex Court in para 23 of the judgment, observed that however, Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation, but has to be read along with the other provisions in Cr.P.C., and one such other provision, as per the Apex Court is Section 482 Cr.P.C. Para 23 of the judgment reads as under:

"....However, it has to be pointed out that Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with the other provisions in Cr.P.C. One such other provision is Section 482 Cr.P.C. which reads:

"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

The words "Nothing in this Code" used in Section 482 is a non-obstante clause, and gives it overriding effect over other provisions in Cr.P.C. The words "or otherwise to secure the ends of justice" in Section 482 implies that to secure the interest of justice sometimes (though only in very rare cases) the High Court can pass an order in violation of a provision in Cr.P.C..."

6. Although in this case, while interpreting Section 320 along with Section 482 Cr.P.C., having a non-obstante clause, the Apex Court observed that this matter should be determined elaborately by a larger Bench in some later case.

7. Accordingly, a Division Bench of Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. on 23.11.2010 SLP (Crl.) No. 8989/2010) expressed that the decisions rendered in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchants vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State of others (2008) 16 SCC 1, require reconsideration and the matter was directed to be placed before a larger Bench to reconsider the correctness of the aforesaid three decisions.

8. It was observed that in these decisions Apex Court has indirectly permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences whereas Section 320 Cr.P.C. mentions certain offences compoundable, certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the Court and the other offences as non-compoundable vide Section 320(7) Cr.P.C.

9. Further the Court expressed that something which cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly and non-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document