Back
2001 Supreme(P&H) 1138
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.M.Jain, J.
Juber
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Misc. No. 41255 of 2001,
Decided On : OCTOBER 15, 2001
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offense under Section 377, IPC, is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court, as per Section 320(9), CrPC.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashment of FIR - Section 377, IPC - Section 320, CrPC - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for compounding of offenses. It highlighted that the offense under Section 377, IPC, is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court, as per Section 320(9), CrPC. The court also referred to relevant case laws and the legislative mandate regarding compounding of offenses under the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner filed a petition seeking quashment of FIR 235 dated 14.9.1996 under Section 377, IPC, based on a compromise reached with the complainant-respondent No. 2 during the pendency of the Appeal against his conviction under Section 377, IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offense under Section 377, IPC, is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court, as per Section 320(9), CrPC. It dismissed the petition as no case for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings was made out.
Issues: The issues involved the compounding of the offense under Section 377, IPC, based on a compromise reached during the pendency of the Appeal against the accused-petitioner's conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legislative mandate of Section 320(9), CrPC, which specifies that no offense shall be compounded except as provided by Section 320. It also considered relevant case laws and held that the offense under Section 377, IPC, is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashment of the FIR under Section 377, IPC, and all subsequent proceedings was dismissed by the court.
V.M.Jain, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482, CrPC, filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking quashment of FIR 235 dated 14.9.1996 under Section 377, IPC, registered in Police Station, Tauru (District Gurgaon) and all subsequent proceedings, arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of the compromise.
2. In the petition, it was alleged that the petitioner was challaned by the Police in the aforesaid FIR, which was lodged by complainant-respondent No. 1, Shaukat. It was alleged that after the submission of the challan, the accused-petitioner was tried for the offence under Section 377, IPC and vide judgment dated 20.8.1999, he was convicted under Section 377 IPC, and was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. It was alleged that aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, the accused-petitioner had filed an Appeal before the Sessions Court and the same was now fixed 16.10.2001. It was alleged that during pendency of the Appeal, the accused-petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2, arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the respectables of the village, including the Sarpanch and the Lambardar and as a result of the said compromise, the parties had resolved their dispute amicably. A copy of the said compromise was attached as Annexure P3 with the petition. It was alleged that under section 320, IPC, some of the offences were compoundable by the aggrieved persons and some of the offences were compoundable by the aggrieved persons but with the leave of the Court. It was alleged that the offence under Section 377, IPC, was not compoundable even with the permission of the Court and as such, the inherent powers of this Court were being invoked for quashing the aforesaid FIR. It was alleged that this Court and the Honble Supreme Court, in various cases, had shown indulgence and had compounded the offences, even at the appellate stage.
3. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this court, in Criminal Misc 30116-M of 1998, Charat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others decided on 2.11.2000, copy Annexure P4.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and gone through the record carefully.
5. Admittedly, the accused-petitioner was convicted under Section 377, IPC, and was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and the Appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence is pending in the Sessions Court. It is also not disputed that the offence under Section 377, IPC, is not compoundable under Section 320, CrPC, even with the permission of the Court. Section 320(9), CrPC reads as under :-
"No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section."
6. Section 320, CrPC has given two tables. The first table gives the list of offences, which are compoundable by the aggrieved party with the accused and the second table gives the list of the offences, which are compoundable by the aggrieved person with the accused, with the permission of the Court. Section 320(5), CrPC, provides that where the accused has been committed for trial or where the accused was convicted and the appeal is pending, no composition of the offences shall be allowed without the leave of the Court. Under Section 320(6), CrPC, it is provided that the High Court and the Court of Session, exercising powers of revision under Section 401, CrPC, may allow any person to compound under Section 320, CrPC. In the present case, as referred to above, the offence under Section 377, IPC, is not an offence which is included in either of the two tables under Section 320, CrPC, and is, thus, not compoundable even with the permission of the Court.
7. In Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa, 1999(2) Recent Criminal Reports 683, the Honble Supreme Court was considering the effect of Section 320(9), CrPC, in respect of an offence under Section 326, IPC, which was not compoundable, even with the permission of the Court and it was held as under :
