2012 (9) TMI 1112 - SC - Indian Laws

Power pf High court - power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R - Held that - The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. Decisions of this Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (3) TMI 721 - SUPREME COURT , - Nikhil Merchant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 2008 (8) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA And Manoj Sharma Versus State and Ors. 2008 (10) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a settlement between the parties.
2. The distinction between compounding of offences under Section 320 of the Code and quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482.
3. The conditions under which the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings.
4. The impact of previous Supreme Court decisions on the exercise of inherent power under Section 482.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inherent Power of the High Court under Section 482:
The inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a settlement between the parties is distinct from the power of compounding offences under Section 320 of the Code. Section 482 is an overriding provision that preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. This power is not circumscribed by any specific provision in the Code, including Section 320.

2. Distinction Between Compounding of Offences and Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:
Compounding of offences under Section 320 of the Code is strictly governed by the categories of offences that can be compounded with or without the permission of the court. In contrast, the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 is based on the inherent power of the High Court. The two powers are distinct and not interchangeable, even though the ultimate consequence may be the same, i.e., acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the indictment.

3. Conditions for Exercising Inherent Power to Quash Criminal Proceedings:
The exercise of inherent power under Section 482 must be guided by the objective to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, whether the offence has a predominantly civil flavour, and whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. Heinous and serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, and offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the parties. However, offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or matrimonial disputes, where the wrong is essentially private or personal in nature, may be quashed if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the proceedings would result in extreme injustice to the accused.

4. Impact of Previous Supreme Court Decisions:
The decisions in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, and Manoj Sharma illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482, and Section 320 does not limit or affect this power. These cases demonstrate that quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties does not amount to compounding non-compoundable offences indirectly. The inherent power under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and with caution, taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case.

Conclusion:
The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 is distinct from the power to compound offences under Section 320. The inherent power is to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court, especially in cases where the dispute has a predominantly civil flavour and the continuation of the proceedings would result in extreme injustice. The decisions in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, and Manoj Sharma were correctly decided, and the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 remains intact and applicable in appropriate cases.

← Previous Next →