Back
2002 Supreme(Raj) 494
Rajasthan High Court
Honble H.R. PANWAR, J.
Bheru Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 678 of 2001
Decided On : April 02, 2002
N.M. Lodha and Anil Bhanari, for Petitioner Gopi Kishan Vyas, Public Prosecutor K.L. Thakur and Ashok Upadhyaya, for Non-petitioners No.2 & 3
Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 482 read with Sec. 320(1), (2) & (16) and Penal Code, Sec. 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 & 341 – Dropping of criminal proceedings – Compromise filed before trial Court – Trial Court acquitted u/Sec.323, 324 and 341 Penal Code but refused to compound offence u/Sec.147, 148, 149 and 326 IPC as these offences are not compoundable u/Sec.320 Cr.P.C. – Held – While deciding the question as to whether proceedings can be quashed u/Sec.482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that parties have compounded an offence which is non-compoundable under the law, the High Court cannot convert a non-compoundable offence into a compoundable offence by quashing proceedings u/Sec.482 Cr.P.C. (Paras 11, 12 & 13)
In view of express bar contained in sub-section (9) of Sec. 320 of the Code, the High Court cannot, in exercise of its inherent power u/Sec. 482 of the Code, permit composition of an offence which is not compoundable under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of Sec. 320 of the Code. The question of law for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court was whether composition of offence/offences, except as provided by section 320 Cr.P.C. can be permitted in exercise of power u/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., specially when sub-section (9) of Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. expressly prohibits. This Court answered the question in negative. (Para 11)
(2). A charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for offence under Sections 324, 326, 323, 341, 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. on an FIR lodged by non-petitioner No. 3 Vijay Singh. During pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offences noticed above, a compromise was filed before the trial court on 1.10.2001. By the order impugned dated 1.10.2001, the trial court verified the compromise for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 341 I.P.C. as these offences are compoundable under Sec. 320 of the Code and acquitted the petitioner for the offences under sections 323, 324 and 341 I.P.C. The trial court refused to compound the offences under sections 147, 148, 149 and 326 I.P.C. as these offences are not compoundable under Sec. 320 of the Code. The trial court proceeded with the trial of the case. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2001, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code for dropping of the proceedings for the offences, which are not compoundable.
(3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned.
(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the offences for which the trial court refused to compound are non- compoundable yet the parties entered into the compromise and, therefore, the trial court ought to have compounded the offences and the proceedings against the petitioner should have been dropped.
(5). Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for non- petitioners No. 2 and 3 contended that the offences, which are out of purview of Sec. 320 of the Code are non-compoundable and the trial court has rightly refused to record the compromise for those offences.
(6). Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand & Another vs. State of Rajasthan (1). He has also relied on Gur Charan Kaur vs. State (2), Rameshwar @ Pappu & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (3), Saleem & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (4), Abdul Nadeem & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (5), Gurcharan Singh vs. State & Anr. (6).
(7). Section 320 of the Code deals with compounding of offences. The relevant provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2), (6), (8) and (9), which are relevant for the decision of this petition are reproduced hereunder.
``320. Compounding of offences. (1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table.....
(2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table....
(6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section.
(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.
(8). The offences which are specified in the table under sub- section (1) of Sec. 320 of the Code are compoundable without permission of the court. The offences which are specified in the table under sub-section (2) of Sec. 320 of the Code are made compoundable with the permission of the court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending. From the language of sub-section (2) of Sec. 320 of the Code, it is clear that the offences in the table under
