Shiji @ Pappu & Ors vs Radhika & Anr on 14 November, 2011
In Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[13]. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not
compoundable under Section 320 Indian Penal Code is by itself
no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power
under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code That power can in
our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of
recording a conviction against the accused and the entire
exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There
is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the
parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the
exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution
under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code on the other. While
a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against
conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of
an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the
parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable
under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution
even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand
charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the
High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are not
for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Criminal Procedure
Code Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude
of the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code by
itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the
same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature
of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only
in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of
the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be
nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither
necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in
which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified.