LexGIAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 753 GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8989 of 2010 etc.) SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 [R.M. LODHA, ANIL R. DAVE AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 482 and 320 - Quashing of criminal proceedings in a case where offender has settled his dispute with the victim A B c of crime, but the said crime is not compoundable - Ambit and scope of ss. 482 and 302 - Explained - Held: Power of compounding of offences given to a court u/s 320 is materially 0 different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction - In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in s. 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby; whreas the E formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment - The words "nothing in this Code" occurring in F s.482 means that it is an overriding provision and none of the provisions orthe Code limits or restricts the inherent power - Decisions in the cases of B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji alias Pappu do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or G complaint in exercise of its inherent power uls 482 of the Code, and s. 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court u/s 482 - It cannot be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in the said cases, the Court has 753 H 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. A compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly - Principles emerging from various decisions culled out. s. 482 - Inherent power of High Court - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Held: Before exercise of the power, 8 High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime - Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute - Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the C offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc. cannot provide any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences - But, as has been explained in the instant judgment, the criminal cases D having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing. Maxim: E Quando lex a liquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest - Explained. The petitioner was convicted ulss 420 and 120-B IPC. During the pendency of the appeal before the Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed a petition uls 482 CrPC before · F the High Court seeking to quash the FIR on the ground of compounding the offence. The petition was dismissed. When the instant petition was listed before a two- Judge Bench, it felt that the decisions in B. S. Joshi', Nikhil G Merchant2 and Manoj Sharma3 required reconsideration and, therefore, referred the matter to a larger Bench4• 1. 2003 (2) SCR 1104. 2. 2008 (12) SCR 236. 3. 2008 (14) SCR 539 H 4. 201 O SCR 1034. GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 755 The issue for consideration before the Court was with A regard to inherent powers of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who had settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he was involved was not compoundable u/s 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. B Answering the reference, the Court HELD: 1.1. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as C compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court u/s 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High o Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.