Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Vipin and another - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and another - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 72 of 2025
Decided on : 03-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

The court ruled that offences under Sections 341, 323, and 506 of IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., and inherent powers should not be exercised when alternative remedies are available.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 323, 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 320 - Quashing of FIR - The petitioners sought to quash an FIR based on a compromise; however, the court found that the offences were compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. - The court emphasized that the offence under Section 506 of IPC is compoundable, contrary to the petitioners' claim - The court noted that the petitioners had alternative remedies available and should approach the learned Magistrate for compounding the offences - The petition was dismissed as the extraordinary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised when a specific remedy exists. (Paras 1, 5, 14, 15)

(B) Inherent Powers - The court reiterated that inherent powers should not be exercised when a specific remedy exists under the Code, as established in various precedents. (Paras 9, 12)

Table of Content
1. counsel for the petitioners (Para 2)
2. counsel for the respondent-state (Para 3)
3. considerable thought to the submissions (Para 4)
4. offence punishable under section 506 (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
5. inherent power should not be exercised (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. present petition fails (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 168 of 2020, dated 20.10.2020, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) based on the compromise effected between the parties. When the matter was listed, it was noticed that the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323 and 506 of IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 359 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS); hence, the parties were heard on the question of maintainability.

2. Mr Bhim Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offence punishable under Section 506 (2) of IPC is non-compoundable and the petitioners do not have any other remedy except to approach this Court; hence, he prayed that the present petition be heard on merit. He relied upon some article downloaded from the internet wherein reference was made to Kamal Kishore @ KP Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) 2015 0 Supreme (Del) 4428, Baiju Vs. Sub Inspector of Police MANU/KE/0168/2006 and Thamaraikani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/TN/1058/1991 in support of his submission.

3. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State submitted that as per Section 320 of Cr.P.C., an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is compoundable and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not refer to Section 506 (i) or 506(ii) but Section 506 of IPC . The petitioners have adequate remedy of approaching learned Magistrate where the matter is pending and this Court should not entertain the petition for quashing the FIR.

4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

5. Section 320 of Cr.P.C. mentions the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC in Table 1. It does not mention Sections 506 (i) or 506(ii). Section 359 of BNSS mentions Section 351(2) and 351(3) specifically, which correspond to Section 506(i) and Section 506(ii) of IPC . 237^th report of the Law Commission of India also mentions that the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 508 of the IPC are compoundable, whereas offence punishable under Section 507 of the IPC is not compoundable and should be made compoundable to the extent it refers to Section 506(i) of IPC . This report also shows that the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC is compoundable and it cannot be said that the offence punishable under section 506 (ii) of IPC is not compoundable.

6. It was held by this Court in Kamla Thakur v. State of H.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine HP 859 that the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is compoundable. It was observed:

“7. From a perusal of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , it is evident that in so far as Sections 506 and 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 are concerned, the same are compoundable.”

7. Hence, the submission that the offence punishable under Section 506 (ii) is non-compoundable is not acceptable.

8. The judgment in Kamal Kishore (supra) states that the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is non- compoundable without referring to Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The judgment in Thamaraikani (supra) does not deal with the question whether the offence is compoundable or not. The Kerala High Court has taken a view in Baiju (supra) that the offence punishable under Section 506 (ii) is not compoundable as it is punishable with imprisonment of seven years but failed to notice Section 320 of Cr.P.C. wherein the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC has been mentioned without mentioning the part