Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a Special Leave Petition filed by one Gian Singh, who had been convicted under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. While his appeal against conviction was pending, he filed an application for compounding the offence and subsequently moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR on the ground of compromise. The High Court dismissed the petition, relying on Section 320 of the Code which classifies offences as compoundable and non-compoundable and expressly prohibits compounding of offences not provided in the section. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, a two-Judge Bench heard the matter. The petitioner placed reliance on three previous rulings of the Court – B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and Manoj Sharma v. State – which had permitted the quashing of criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences under Section 482 on the basis of settlement between the parties. The Bench, however, expressed its doubt over the correctness of these decisions. It noted that Section 320(9) explicitly states that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that section, and Section 120B is a non-compoundable offence. The Bench observed that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, and that the Court cannot amend the statute; it is the legislature's function to amend Section 320. The Bench further observed that judicial restraint required that non-compoundable offences not be permitted to be compounded by the court, whether directly or indirectly. Consequently, the two-Judge Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the three decisions. The matters were then placed before the present larger Bench. The judgment then proceeds to set out the text of Sections 320 and 482 of the Code. It also details the facts and holdings in B.S. Joshi and Nikhil Merchant. In B.S. Joshi, the Supreme Court had held that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 is not limited by Section 320, and that quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC on the basis of a matrimonial settlement was permissible to prevent women from being deterred from settling. In Nikhil Merchant, the Court had extended this principle to quash charges including forgery (a non-compoundable offence) following a compromise in a dispute having civil overtones. The present judgment notes the tension between the plain language of Section 320 and the expansive application of Section 482 in the earlier rulings. The larger Bench is yet to render its final decision on the reference. The provided text does not contain the ultimate ruling of the larger Bench, which would later go on to authoritatively settle the law on quashing of non-compoundable offences based on compromise.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure – Compounding of Offences – Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 320(1), (2), (7), (9) – Section 320 classifies offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code as compoundable by specified persons, compoundable with permission of the court, and non-compoundable. Sub-section (9) provides that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. The referring Bench observed that non-compoundable offences cannot be permitted to be compounded directly or indirectly, and that courts should not amend the statute or usurp legislative function. (Para 1) B) Criminal Procedure – Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 saves the inherent power of the High Court to make orders to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of process, or secure ends of justice. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Supreme Court held that this power is not limited by Section 320, and the High Court can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences if a settlement is reached, as a hypertechnical view would prevent women from settling earlier and defeat the object of Section 498-A IPC. (Paras 5, 14-15 of B.S. Joshi as quoted) C) Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings on Settlement – Non-compoundable Offences – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 467, 468, 471; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 – In Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677, the Supreme Court, following B.S. Joshi, quashed criminal proceedings including non-compoundable offences of forgery on the basis of a compromise in a case having civil dispute overtones, holding that the power under Section 482 can be exercised independently to secure ends of justice. (Paras 6, 28-31) D) Criminal Procedure – Reference to Larger Bench – Correctness of B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, and Manoj Sharma – Sections 320, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – The two-Judge Bench doubted the correctness of B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, and Manoj Sharma, observing that what cannot be done directly (compounding non-compoundable offences) cannot be done indirectly through Section 482, and referred the matter to a larger Bench. The larger Bench is now seized of the matter to reconsider the scope of the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences based on compromise. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise between the parties, and whether the decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and Manoj Sharma v. State were correctly decided.
Final Decision
The two-Judge Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench to reconsider the correctness of B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, and Manoj Sharma. The larger Bench is hearing the matters; no final decision is rendered in the provided text.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Non-compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC cannot be directly compounded
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may be invoked to quash proceedings to secure ends of justice
- not limited by Section 320
- correctness of permitting indirect compounding of non-compoundable offences via Section 482 requires reconsideration
