10. Let notice of motion be issued to the Advocates General of the States of Punjab and Haryana for 26.7.2007. Let the 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.?
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:
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 be any different where the petitioner approaches the High Court for the grant of similar relief while invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, after taking into consideration the judgments in the cases reported as Madhu Limaye v. State of Mahrashtra , Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors. , has summed up in the case reported as State through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru and Ors. 2003(2) R.C.R. (Crl.) 860(SC) : (2003) 6 S.C.C. 64 has summoned up the legal position in para Nos. 28 and 29 as follows:
e. The offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. Offences committed by Public Servants purporting to act in that capacity as also offences against public servant while the victims are acting in the discharge of their duty must remain non-compoundable. Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter-VII (relating to army,navy and air force) must remain non-compoundable.