RAMGOPAL & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 29-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
249
RAMGOPAL & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012)
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI AND SURYA KANT, J.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482 and 320 –
Quashing of criminal prosecution – On basis of compromise/
settlement between the parties – Jurisdiction within framework of
s.320 CrPC vis-à-vis powers vested in High Court u/s.482 CrPC
or in Supreme Court u/Art. 142 of the Constitution – Held: Limited
jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of s.320
CrPC is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the
High Court vested in it u/s.482 CrPC – As opposed to s.320 CrPC
where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the
parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory
framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court
u/s.482 CrPC or vested in Supreme Court u/Art. 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of s.320
CrPC – Nonetheless, such powers of wide amplitude ought to be
exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings,
bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the the
society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature
of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct
of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the
purported offence and/or other relevant considerations –
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 142.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of
criminal prosecution – On basis of compromise/settlement between
the parties – Scope of powers exercisable by High Court u/s.482
CrPC – Held: High Court having regard to the nature of the
offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute
and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal
proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent
powers u/s.482 CrPC, even if the offences are non-compoundable
– Criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 249
249
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be
annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been
concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction –
However, the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the
High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping
in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in
which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard
to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct
of the accused, before and after the incidence.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 142 – Quashing of
criminal prosecution – Nature of powers vested in Supreme Court
u/Art. 142 – Held: Plenary jurisdiction of Supreme Court to impart
complete justice u/Art.142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted
by ordinary statutory provisions – Even in absence of an express
provision akin to s.482 CrPC conferring powers on the Supreme
Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, jurisdiction
exercisable u/Art. 142 embraces the Supreme Court with scopious
powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure
complete justice – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. True it is that 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 the court would amount to alteration, addition
and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive
domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in
the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider
interpretation and include such offences in the docket of
‘compoundable’ offences which have been consciously kept out
as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to
compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High
Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court,
keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case
and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid
to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure
the ends of justice. [Para 11][260-D-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
251
2. The High Court having regard to the nature of the
offence and the fact that parties hav

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.