Criminal Misc. No. M-4003 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-4003 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.08.2011. Balwinder Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for respondent No.1 – State. Mr. G.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.2. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report No.181 dated October 20th, 2009, under Section 376 of Indian Penal code registered against him in Police Station Patti District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1) on the ground that he has now compromised the matter with the complainant-respondent No.2. 2. The legislature had in its wisdom identified the various offences in which it thought that a resolution of the dispute would be in the interest of the society. The provisions of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with "compounding of offences". It provides two tables, one containing description of offences which can be compounded by the person mentioned in it and the other containing description of offences which can be compounded with the permission of the Court by the persons indicated therein. Only such offences as are included in the said two Tables can be compounded and none else. Sub-Section (9) of Section 320 of the Code imposes a ban in the following terms: "(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section." 3. While commenting upon Section 320 of the Code, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma vs. State & others 2008 Criminal Misc. No. M-4003 of 2010 (O&M) 2 (4) RCR(Criminal) 827 has observed vide paragraph No.27 as under:- “Since Section 320 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated which offences are compoundable and which are not, the High Court or even this Court would not ordinarily be justified in doing something indirectly which could not be done directly. Even otherwise, it ordinarily would not be a legitimate exercise of judicial power under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct doing something which the Cr.P.C. has expressly prohibited. Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. expressly states that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that Section. Hence, in my opinion, it would ordinarily not be a legitimate exercise of judicial power to direct compounding of a non- compoundable offence.” 4. It was further observed in paragraph No.33:- “There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Sections 395, 307 or 304B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases, (like those akin to a civil nature) the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable. Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later decisions of this Court, preferably by a larger bench (so as to make it more authoritative). Some guidelines will have to be evolved in this connection and the matter cannot Criminal Misc. No. M-4003 of 2010 (O&M) 3 be left at the sole unguided discretion of Judges, otherwise there may be conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial discretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot.” 5. Some minor offences have been recognized as compoundable offences which permit of a compromise. Not only that, this Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Code but that should be in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice in view of the judgment Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. This Court is of the opinion that it is not a case where the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised as the quashing of FIR will not prevent the abuse of process of any Court rather it will be abuse of the provision of Section 482 of the Code itself. Otherwise too, it is well settled principle of law “that you shall not make a trade of a felony. 6. The present case, in opinion of this Court, is not a case where the inherent power should be exercised. The petition is dismissed. 04.08.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) neetu/SN JUDGE Whether refer to reporter: Yes/No