Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. As a matter of fact, on its precise reading, both the situations, i.e. when a criminal offence is being sought to be settled based on the compromise or where the criminal offences are being sought to be settled by the invocation of Section 320 Cr.P.C., they are definitely not interchangeable with one another because both are materially different as they deal with different parameters and grounds, to be considered, as in the first situation, the Court has to exercise its inherent power under C-482 or under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India which cannot be circumscribed and limited by the stipulations contained under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. which deals with second concept. Code of Criminal Procedure, so far as it relates to the provisions contained under Section 320 Cr.P.C., it could very well be said, it only guides the consideration to be borne in mind by the Courts when the Court exercises a power for composition of an offence in an absence of settlement under Section 320 Cr.P.C.. In such a situation, where the Court exercise the power, obviously, the implication of Sub- section (2) of Section 320 and Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. has to be taken into consideration which limits the scope of exercise of powers by the Courts. But, a situation where the criminal disputes, irrespective of its nature of offences, its seriousness is being settled by the terms arrives at, the provisions contained under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be strictly made applicable to athwart the settlement between the parties. Only rider which has been attached thereto which requires caution when the Courts are settling the disputes in relation to the offences which are of serious in nature, for example Sections 302, 306, 307 and 376 I.P.C., and such other sexual offences, the Court's will have to consider to attract its inherent power depending upon the material and the nature of the offences which is under consideration to be settled in terms of the compromise. There cannot be any strait jacketed formula for deciding the criminal controversy between the parties based on the settlement as each settlement has its own facts and nature of offence and the circumstances in which it has been committed which will call upon the court to consider pondering on the issue of exercising inherent powers of compounding the offence, and the controversy which is to be decided is based on the attraction of Section 320 Cr.P.C., is altogether different ingredients.

10. The basic ratio and the extent of power which the constitutional Courts have, they are much distinct to the powers which could be exercised by the criminal Courts for the purpose of compounding the offences. The inherent powers of the Courts, particularly, when seized with the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, it has got a wide plentitude and the same cannot be circumscribed or limited to be exercised so as to meet the ends of justice instead of strictly considering the inherent powers in relation to the powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. What is necessary to be considered by the Constitutional Courts, while deciding the matter based on the settlement, which is distinct to the composition of scope under Section 320 Cr.P.C. These are the following wider parameters for compounding offences based on the settlement :

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."

Hence, on considering the aforesaid prepositions, it can be safely concluded that in view of the language used in the provisions contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which confers the inherent power to the High Courts, cannot be limited by the provisions contained under Section 320 Cr.P.C. as they being the plenary power and independent to Section 320 Cr.P.C and will not be eclipsed by the restrictions of sub-Section (9) of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the composition for the heinous offence and, in particularly, the case at hand in relation to the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., it would depend upon the factors as determined by para 29 of the Naarinder Singh (Supra) case.

41. In view of discussions and reasons enumerated, the conclusion which could be safely deduced is that the powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. of compounding of offences within its ambit will have to read distinct to the powers vested with superior Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Writ Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and they cannot be limited and circumscribed, as they carry a distinct and wide powers of exercising the inherent powers to eradicate the abuse of process of law. Thus, even heinous offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., which includes offences under Sections 147, 148 and 307 I.P.C. and so forth can be compounded but with the frame work of guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and, in particular, testing each case based on its own factual merits. It could also be concluded by saying that concept of compounding also achieves wider social objectives to bring peace amongst people, increasing tranquility and saving the litigants from facing long drawn judicial proceedings, which would otherwise on its conclusion will not have any legal conclusion.