Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is submitted that during the course of pendency of the appeal the accused No.2 expired. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and PW-1 are present before this Court and filed an application under Section 320 r/w 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking indulgence of this Court to permit the parties to compound the offences and pass appropriate orders in this case. PW-1 - wife of accused No.1 is also present before this Court and she has also filed Affidavit before this Court and she is identified by Advocate by name Sri. Girish S. Hiremath. All the parties have admitted before this Court that they have compromised the matter and accused No.1 and PW-1 have been residing together and they are living happily with each other as husband and wife.

4. Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. In view of the above said compromise between the parties, the learned Counsel restricted his arguments to the sentence passed by the Trial Court. He requested this Court to quash the entire judgment of the Trial Court and as well as Appellate Court and consequently acquit the accused under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C.

6. Learned Counsel for the accused also submitted that if for any reason the Court cannot exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings or acquit the accused under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., as the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have already undergone punishment of one month 12 days after the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court. Therefore, reduce the sentence passed by the Trial Court to the extent of the imprisonment already undergone by the accused persons.

7. I have carefully perused Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which reads thus :

"Saving of inherent power of High Court.--Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".

The said provision empowers the Court to exercise its inherent extraordinary power in order to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The word 'otherwise to secure the ends of justice' has to be understood in connection with the other words used in the said provision. Therefore, even accepting the said power vested in this Court i.e. the Court can pass any order to secure the ends of justice, but it should be taken in such a manner that such power has to be exercised so as to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to give effect to any orders under this Code. In this particular case, the judgment has already been delivered by the Trial Court and as well as the Appellate Court. Therefore, there is no question of abuse of any process of any Court arises or the Court cannot exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to give effect to any orders under this Code considering the peculiar nature of this case. Further added to that, compounding of the offences can only be done by the Courts under the Code under Section 320(1) or (2) of Cr.P.C. By exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Court virtually cannot permit the parties to compound a non-compoundable offence which is not permitted under Section 320(1) or 320(2) of Cr.P.C., otherwise, the very purpose of introducing Section 320(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. will be totally frustrated, if the High Court start exercises the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and allows the parties to compromise the petition unmindful of the provision under Section 320(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. it will amounts to opening the flood gate and there will be uncontrollable number of cases would be filed before this Court irrespective of the nature of the offences and gravity of the offences. Therefore, in my opinion, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked as a substitute to Section 320(1) or (2) of Cr.P.C. they are two distinct and separate powers to be exercised by different authorities. Of course, there is no bar for this Court to allow the parties to enter into compromise even at the stage of Revision against the judgment of the Appellate Court or challenging the order of the Trial Court against acquittal or the conviction judgment rendered by the Trial Court only if the offences are compoundable in nature. Even if the Trial Court render judgment of conviction if the offences are compoundable then even at the time of exercising the Revisional powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. the Court can allow the parties to compromise the matter before the High Court only if the offences are compoundable in nature and not a non- compoundable offence can be allowed to be compromised. Section 320(9) of Cr.P.C. also amply makes it clear that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section i.e. the mandate of the statute but no Court can permit the parties to compound the offence except as provided under the provisions under Section 320(1) or (2) of Cr.P.C.

The Apex Court has clarified that the distinction between Section 320 and 482 of Cr.P.C. which was held that the two provisions are materially different and not interchangeable. In compounding of offence, power of Criminal Court is circumscribed by provisions contained in S. 320, being guided solely and squarely thereby - On the other hand, formation of opinion by High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint under S. 482 is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment - Hence, quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offences. Therefore, it makes abundantly clear that while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Court can take compromise between the parties as one of the circumstances to quash the proceedings but quashment of the proceedings should be within the para-meters of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. i.e. in order to prevent the abuse of process of Courts and also in order to secure the ends of justice.