2021 Supreme(SC) 529

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, CJI., Surya Kant, J.
Ramgopal & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012
With
Krishnappa & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1488 of 2012
Decided On : 29-09-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Offences which are ‘non-compoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is exclusive domain of Legislature.
(2) Compounding of offence – Cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, fashion in which compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to nature and seriousness of offence, besides conduct of accused, before and after incidence.
(3) Plenary jurisdiction of Apex Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 of Constitution cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 – Compounding of offence – Offences which are ‘non-compoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. – Any such attempt by court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is exclusive domain of Legislature – There is no patent or latent ambiguity in language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in docket of ‘compoundable’ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable – Nevertheless, limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court, keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of process of any Court and/or to secure ends of justice. (Para 11)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 482 and 320 – Compounding of offence – High Court, having regard to nature of offence and fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and victim has willingly consented to nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if offences are non-compoundable – High Court can indubitably evaluate consequential effects of offence beyond body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze very object of administration of criminal justice system – Criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction – Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice – Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions – Cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view circumstances surrounding the incident, fashion in which compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to nature and seriousness of offence, besides conduct of accused, before and after incidence – Touchstone for exercising extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure ends of justice – There can be no hard and fast line constricting power of High Court to do substantial justice – A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice – On other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended – Grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on social and moral fabric of society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact society at large – Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 482 and 320 – Power to do complete justice – Plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions – Even in absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of Constitution embraces this Court with powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice – In doing so, due regard must be given to overarching objective of sentencing in criminal justice system which is grounded on sublime philosophy of maintenance of peace of collective and that rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation – As opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where Court is squarely guided by compromise between parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within statutory framework, extraordinary power enjoined upon High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of Constitution, can be invoked beyond metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. – Nonetheless, such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of offence on conscious of society; (ii) Seriousness of injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and victim; & (iv) Conduct of accused persons, prior to and after occurrence of purported offence and/or other relevant considerations. (Paras 18 and 19)

Facts of the case:

Appellants, together with Accused Nos. 5 and 7 were tried and convicted under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 342, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC and the maximum sentence awarded to them was two years simple imprisonment under Section 326 IPC. The trial against Accused No. 6 was split after filing of the charge-sheet, since he remained absconding. The Appellants along with co-accused, approached the High Court of Karnataka, challenging their conviction and sentence. The High Court acquitted Accused Nos. 5 & 7 finding insufficient evidence to sustain their involvement in the subject crime, but maintained the conviction and sentence qua the Appellants. In this case as well, the parties entered into a compromise. The said compromise was, however, not placed on record before the Trial Court or the High Court. The Appellants are now seeking ‘compounding of offences’ and their consequential acquittal on the basis of compromise reached between them and the Complainant-victim.

Findings of Court:

In so far as this appeal is concerned, we note that even though Counsel(s) for the Appellants and Complainant-victim have jointly stated before this Court that the parties have settled their dispute(s), but no formal settlement has either been brought on record nor has it been even clarified that such a deed of settlement has been recorded. Admittedly, the factum of compromise/settlement between parties has been raised for the first time before this Court. In the absence of any proof of settlement, we find ourselves hard-pressed to take cognizance of the asseverated compromise.

Result : Criminal Appeals disposed of.