Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Under normal law of interpretation, by the use of aforesaid words, "nothing in this code", the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. would have an effect of being an overriding provision and there is no doubt about the fact that the other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code will not limit or restrict the inherent powers to be exercised by the High Court. Rather, it could also be said that the powers vested with the High Courts while exercising powers under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. is not an addition to the power but rather it is the power which intends to safeguards the abuse which may occur on account of enforceability of other provisions under the Code, and is spirited to meet the ends of justice in its wider social implication. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (Supra), in its para 53 and 54 has held as under :-

(1) SCC 335, which too, has provided the determination of powers of the High Courts under Section C-482 Cr.P.C.. Para 8 of the judgment of Nikhil Merchant (Supra) reads as under :-

"8. Apart from the said decision, reliance was also placed on another decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana wherein while dealing with the proceedings under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Penal Code involving matrimonial disputes and offences, this Court held that even though the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 CrPC and the powers conferred on the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India. Referring to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal this Court observed that the categories indicated in the said case which warranted exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC were only illustrative and not exhaustive. This Court ultimately held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or an FIR or complaint and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code."

26. It was arising out of the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section C-482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has declined to quash the F.I.R. under Sections 307, 324 and 323/34 I.P.C., based on the compromise entered between the victim and the offender and the reason for refusal which has been recorded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court was that the offence being heinous in nature would fall to be an offence not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C and bar of Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. come into play as it has an element of being a social offence and also the stage at which, the settlement for the offences aforesaid was under consideration, was an issue before the High Court was the stage when the investigation stood completed, challan has been presented in the Court and the accused were charged and the matter was pending before the Trial Court. It was at that stage that in C-482 proceedings by way of criminal petition, a prayer was made for quashing of the F.I.R.. In the said case, settlement thus arrived, following assertions were made :-

On considering the aforesaid judgment and the ratio as propounded by his Lordships as a matter of fact even the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that it would not be safe to hold that there is an absolute bar of compounding the heinous offence, but, only precautions are the guidelines which have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 29 of the Narinder Singh (Supra) case.

33. Often, whenever the question comes as to whether an offence is compoundable or not and whether the High Courts, which exercising its powers under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, is seized with the settlement, what would be the extent of its power, it has to consider it from the view point with regard to nature of offence, which is being sought to be compounded, if it happens to be of personal nature, for example, that of matrimonial dispute, financial transactions, company matters or matter pertaining to the Negotiable Instruments Act, the composition under Section 320 Cr.P.C. or based on a settlement, has to be entered into keeping in mind the personal nature of dispute as the settlement will not at all affect a public policy, rather it would result into the settlement of personal dispute. This is the broader ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582. Para 5 of the said judgment has dealt with the aforesaid ratio, the same is quoted hereunder :