Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
Kulwinder Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 8 August, 2007
Showing the contexts in which compounding non compoundable offences appears in the document
Change context size

paper book of this case be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders. 11. Meanwhile, the proceedings before the learned trial court, in the case in hand, shall remained stayed." In essence, what we have been called upon to determine, can be briefly encapsulated as under: 1. Whether the High Court has the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings or allow the compounding of the offences in the event of the parties entering into a compromise in the cases which have been specified as non-compoundable offences and in particular, in view of the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the aforesaid power could be restricted to matrimonial cases only? 12. In order to reflect upon the controversy, we appropriately sought the assistance of Shri R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae; Shri H.S. Mattewal, Advocate General, Punjab; Shri H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana and Shri R.S. Rai, (Senior Advocate), Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh. 13. The stream of thoughts and the contentions made by Shri R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate; Shri H.S. Mattewal, Advocate

16. In Dharmabir's case (supra), Amar Dutt, J. (the author of the majority view and B.K.Roy,C.J. concurring with it) proceeded on a premise that the Apex Court had, in relation to this aspect of the matter, time and again, held that in cases involving non-compounding offences, the High Court would not use inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to circumvent the power. While elaborating this point, the view expressed by the Supreme Court in various judgments was extensively referred to. The relevant paragraphs of the majority judgment are reproduced below:

Adalat is organised: Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law." specifically debars the Lok Adalat from taking cognizance of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. The ratio of the judgment in Phulan Rani's case (supra) would take out of the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat the cases where the offence related to matters which are not compoundable. 7. The concept of judicial precedent as emerges from the judgments referred to hereinbefore is that the High Court has to be reluctant to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code for granting in favour of the parties where there exists a statutory bar either in the Code or any other law, which would disentitle the parties to the relief sought for by them. 8. After having examined the scope of interference by the High Court to allow compounding of non-compoundable offences while exercising its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., we may proceed to examine the question as to whether the position would

these terms is left open to the response of an Hon'ble Judge to the facts and circumstances of a given case, as and when this Court is called upon to intervene in any matter for preventing the abuse of the process of law and advancing the ends of justice. 18. In B.S. Joshi's case (supra), the Apex Court clearly enunciated the principle that an F.I.R. can be quashed even where the offence was non- compoundable in cases where the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled all their disputes notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. 19. Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. provides a table of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code which may be compounded. It also details the table of the offences under the Indian Penal Code which canbe compounded with the permission of the Court. Sub-Section (9) of Section 320, which is relevant, is reproduced below: 320. Compounding of offences.-(1) to (8) xxx xxx xxx (9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. 20. In Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the Supreme Court