Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (3.32 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
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 Sec on 320 Indian Penal Code is by itself no
reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under
Sec on 482 Criminal Procedure Code That power can in our opinion
be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a
convic on against the accused and the en re exercise of a trial is
des ned to be an exercise in fu lity. There is a subtle dis nc on
between compounding of offences by the par es before the trial
Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the
High Court to quash the prosecu on under Sec on 482 Criminal
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 04-06-2023 09:17:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:036608
CRM-M No.2137 of 2023 --3--
Ramgopal vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited 47 ... on 7 January, 2019
In Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr.A 1489 of 2012, decided on
29.09.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[11]. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot
be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its
powers under Sec on 320 Cr.P.C. Any such a8empt by the court
would amount to altera on, addi on and modifica on of Sec on
320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no
patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Sec on 320 Cr.P.C.,
which may jus fy its wider interpreta on and include such offences
in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been
consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the
limited jurisdic on to compound an offence within the framework of
Sec on 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent
powers by the High Court vested in it under Sec on 482 Cr.P.C. The
High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a
case and for jus fiable reasons can press Sec on 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends
of jus ce.
Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 March, 2014
[13]. It appears to us those criminal proceedings involving non-
heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a
private nature, can be annulled irrespec ve of the fact that trial has
already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
convic on. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of
delivering jus ce. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always
subject to lawful excep ons. It goes without saying, that the cases
where compromise is struck post convic on, the High Court ought to
exercise such discre on with rec tude, keeping in view the
circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the
compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature
and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused,
before and a;er the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the
extraordinary power under Sec on 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure
the ends of jus ce. There can be no hard and fast line constric ng
the power of the High Court to do substan al jus ce. A restric ve
construc on of inherent powers under Sec on 482 Cr.P.C. may lead
to rigid or specious jus ce, which in the given facts and
circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injus ce. On the
other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved
against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as
cau ously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State
of Punjab &Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 466, ¶ 29], and Laxmi Narayan
[(2019) 5 SCC 688, ¶ 15].
Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979
In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise,
placement of par es, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 04-06-2023 09:17:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:036608
CRM-M No.2137 of 2023 --6--
1