Can High Court quash the criminal proceedings or allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences?
Generally, the accused person approaches the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings under section 482 of CRPC. In most cases, the quashing reason is that the victim and the accused have reached a compromise. However, when the offence is non-compoundable, it is rather a question of law before the High Court on whether the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings initiated for the non-compoundable offences even when the parties have reached a compromise. Therefore, we will look into the respective judgements of the Supreme Court to understand the position of law for compounding the non-compoundable offences. First, let us look at section 482 of the CrPC and section 320 of the CRPC.
1.1 Section 320:
320. Compounding of offences.—(1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table of this sub section.
(2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table of this sub-section:—
(3) When an offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence (when such attempt is itself an offence) or where the accused is liable under section 34 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be compounded in like manner.
(4) (a) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the permission of the Court, compound such offence.
(b) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence.
(5) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.
(6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section.
(7) No offence shall be compounded if the accused is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable either to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind for such offence.
(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.
1.2 Section 482
482. Saving of inherent powers 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.
Section 320 categorizes the offences into majorly three categories. Section 320(1) of CRPC lists out various offences such as theft, voluntarily causing hurt where not even permission from the Court is required to compound the offence. Section 320(2) lists the offences requiring court permission to compound the offences. Section 329 expressly debars even the Court to compound offences other than the offences listed under 320(1) and 320 (2).
Section 482 provides inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of Justice.
1.3 Questions of Law?
- Cn High Court quash the FIR or the criminal proceedings under section 482 of CrPC or section 320(9) of CrPC debars the High Court to use its inherent powers, when the parties have settled or compromised or arrived at an agreement even in the non-compoundable offence?
- Does section 320(9) of CRPC limit the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC?
The output of these questions is a significant concern for an accused person against whom non-compoundable offences are registered in an FIR.
1.4 SC Citation : GYAN SINGH Vs. State of Punjab:
In GYAN SINGH Vs. State of Punjab (2012 SCC ONLINE SC 769), the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held that the High Court has powers to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings even in the non-compoundable offences and the power of High Court under 482 CRPC is different from the powers of a criminal court for compounding the offences under section 320 of the CRPC. The Supreme court held that the inherent power of the High Court must be judiciously invoked to secure the ends of the Justice or to prevent and abuse of the process of any Court. Although there can not be specific guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings arising due to non-compoundable offences, the apex court held that the High Court must have due regard to the nature and the gravity of the criminal offences. Heinous crimes such as murder, rape, dacoity or the like can have a severe impact on society. Therefore even if there is a compromise between the victim and the accused person, settlements in such offences cannot provide any basis for quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused person. However, the apex court opined that criminal cases which are predominantly of civil flavour (Matrimony, dowry, family property disputes etc.,) stand on a different footing for the purpose of quashing the whole criminal proceedings against the accused person. In such cases, the wrong is private or very personal in nature and the parties have resolved their disputes. Otherwise, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair to the interest of Justice to continue with the criminal proceeding despite the settlement and the compromise between the victim and the accused person and whether to secure the ends of the Justice it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to this question is in affirmative the High Court must be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.