SHIJI @ PAPPU AND ORS. versus RADHIKA AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 14-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 135 
SHIJI @ PAPPU AND ORS. 
v. 
RADHIKA AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.2094 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 14, 2011 
[CYRIAC JOSEPH AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 482 and 320 -
Criminal proceedings against appellants alleging commission 
A 
B 
of offence punishable u/ss. 354 and 394 /PC - Compromise C 
between the parties - Petition u/s. 482 for quashing the 
criminal proceedings - Dismissed by High Court- On appeal 
held: An offence punishable uls. 354 /PC is in terms of s. 320 
compoundable at instance of the woman against whom the 
offence is committed and as such the proceedings thereunder D 
can be quashed - However, offence punishable u/s. 394 /PC 
is not compoundable with or without the permission of the 
court concerned but the High Court may quash the 
prosecution even in such cases - High Court is to exercise 
the power u/s. 482 with utmost care and caution - It must be 
E 
for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where 
refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the 
process of law - The instant case has its origin in the civil 
dispute between the parties, which has apparently been 
resolved by them - It was not a case of broad day light robbery 
F 
for gain - Complainant as also two alleged eye witnesses, who 
are closely related to the complainant, are no longer 
supporting the prosecution version - Thus, the continuance 
of the proceedings is nothing but an empty formality - s. 482 
could be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent G 
abuse of the process of Jaw and thereby preventing a wasteful 
exercise by the courts below - Order passed by the High Court 
is set aside and the prosecution pending before the 
Magistrate is quashed - Penal Code, 1850 - ss. 354 and 394. 
135 
H 
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the 
appellants in the FIR alleging commission of offences 
punishable under Sections 354 and 394 IPC. During the 
pendency, it appears that the parties amicably settled the 
matter among themselves. A criminal petition under 
B Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court for 
quashing of the complaint pending before the Judicial 
Magistrate on basis of amicable settlement of civil and 
criminal disputes between the parties. It was alleged that 
there was a land dispute between the parties as a result 
c altercation took place between the appellants, and the 
husband and brother of the respondent. The High Court 
dismissed the petition holding that the offences with 
which the appellants were charged, are not personal in 
nature. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal. 
b 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 320 Cr.P.C. enlists offences that 
are compoundable with the permission of the Court 
before whom the prosecution is pending and those that 
E can be compounded even without such permission. An 
offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is in terms of 
Section 320(2) of the Code compoundable at the instance 
of the woman against whom the offence is committed. To 
that extent, therefore, there is no difficulty in either 
F quashing the proceedings or compounding the offence 
under Section 354, of which the appellants are accused, 
having regard to the fact that the alleged victim of the 
offence settled the matter with the alleged assailants. An 
offence punishable under Section 394 IPC is not, 
G however, compoundable with or without the permission 
of the Court concerned. [Para 5) [142-A-D] 
H 
12. It is manifest that simply because an offence is 
not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C is by itself 
no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its 
SHIJI @ PAPPU AND ORS. v. RADHIKA AND ANR. 
137 
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can be 
A 
exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording 
a conviction against the accused and .the entire exercise 
of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is· 
a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by 
B 
the parties before the trial court or in appeal on one hand 
and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the 
prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. 
While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal 
against conviction, may not be competent to permit 
compounding of an offence based on a settlement c 
arrived at between the parties in cases where the 
offences are not compoundable under Section 320, th

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