Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Ashok Mishra, for Petitioner;
  • K.N Sharma, Public Prosecutor.
Judges
  • Mr. Navrang Lal Tibrewal
Acts
  • sub-section (8) of Section 320 Cr. P.C Then Sub-section (9) of the said section
  • sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C
  • Section 320 Cr. P.C
  • Section 482 Cr. P.C
  • Section 32 Cr. P.C
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Ashok Mishra, for Petitioner;
  • K.N Sharma, Public Prosecutor.
Judges
  • Mr. Navrang Lal Tibrewal
Acts
  • sub-section (8) of Section 320 Cr. P.C Then Sub-section (9) of the said section
  • sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C
  • Section 320 Cr. P.C
  • Section 482 Cr. P.C
  • Section 32 Cr. P.C
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (N.L. Tibrewal, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from criminal proceedings in which the petitioner, Mohan Singh, was prosecuted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Magistrate convicted Mohan Singh and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 (judgment dated 29-3-1985).

The petitioner appealed to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District (Camp Sambhar Lake). During the pendency of that appeal, an application, signed by both the accused (Mohan Singh) and the complainant (Gulab Singh), sought permission to compound the offence under Section 326 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application on 8-2-1991 on the ground that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable.

Aggrieved by that refusal, the accused and the complainant jointly filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) before the High Court, seeking that the Court allow compounding of the offence despite the Additional Sessions Judge's order declining permission.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether composition of offence(s), except as provided by Section 320 Cr. P.C., can be permitted in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., especially when sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C. expressly prohibits compounding of offences not provided for in that section.
  2. If the answer to (i) is affirmative, whether such permission to compound can be granted after conviction of the accused for offences that are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Mishra)

  • Although Section 326 IPC is not ordinarily compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., can permit composition of such an offence to secure the ends of justice in special circumstances of a given case.
  • There are special circumstances in the present case, which were narrated in the application before the Additional District & Sessions Judge; a certified copy of that application was filed with the petition.
  • Reliance was placed on the decision in Hari Narain v. State of Rajasthan, particularly paras 5–6 of that judgment, which (according to the petitioner) show that compounding under Section 482 can be permitted in suitable special circumstances.

Respondent / Public Prosecutor's Arguments (Shri Sharm)

  • Section 320 Cr. P.C. (the opinion refers to it as the statutory provision dealing with compounding) prescribes which offences may be compounded, and only those offences specified in the tables in that section can be compounded, with or without the court's permission as provided.
  • The offence under Section 326 IPC is punishable with life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years and is not among those offences capable of compounding under Section 320; therefore it cannot be compounded even with the court's permission.
  • What is not permitted by statute cannot be permitted under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C.; the inherent power cannot be used to override clear statutory prohibitions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Hari Narain v. State of Rajasthan Demonstrates (as relied on by petitioner) that under special circumstances a High Court may allow composition of an offence by using inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., even where the offence itself is not normally compoundable under Section 320, to secure the ends of justice (paras 5–6 reproduced in the opinion). The court noted and reproduced paras 5–6 of this decision because the petitioner relied on it. However, the court did not accept that reliance as sufficient to permit compounding in the present case, holding that sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C. creates an express prohibition that cannot be overridden by Section 482 Cr. P.C.; instead, the court referred the question to a Larger Bench for authoritative decision.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds in a stepwise manner, grounded in statutory interpretation and principles limiting inherent jurisdiction:

  1. Statutory Framework: The court identified Section 320 Cr. P.C. as the sole provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that deals with compounding of offences. Only offences enumerated in the two tables in Section 320 may be compounded, either with or without court permission as that section permits.
  2. Legal Effect of Compounding: The court noted the consequence of compounding (as provided under sub-section (8) of Section 320) leads to acquittal for the offence which has been compounded. The court emphasized the mandatory character of sub-section (9) of Section 320, which the opinion quotes: "No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section."
  3. Scope of High Court's Inherent Jurisdiction: The court analyzed the nature of the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and reiterated settled law that this is an extraordinary jurisdiction. Crucially, the court stated that inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to do what legislation expressly prohibits. Where there is an express statutory prohibition, the High Court cannot use Section 482 to override it or create new categories of inherent jurisdiction.
  4. Application to the Present Case: Given the express bar in sub-section (9) of Section 320, the court concluded that offences not enumerated in Section 320 cannot be compounded, and this statutory prohibition constrains the court's power. Although the court acknowledged that in some other cases it has quashed proceedings under Section 482 to secure the ends of justice, the judge found that the present circumstances—where the petitioner has already been convicted under Section 326 IPC—do not permit setting aside a conviction and acquitting the accused by allowing composition of an otherwise non-compoundable offence.
  5. Need for Authoritative Determination: Because of the legal tension between the cited precedent(s) and the statutory provision, and given the gravity of the question (whether Section 482 can be used to permit compounding contrary to Section 320(9)), the court concluded that an authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench is required and formulated two specific questions of law for that Bench.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court concluded that, in view of sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C., offences other than those expressly provided for in Section 320 cannot be compounded; therefore, the High Court should not permit composition of an offence not covered by Section 320 by invoking its powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Further, because the petitioner has already been convicted under Section 326 IPC, his conviction cannot be set aside by permitting compounding of that offence which is not compoundable under Section 320.

Direct Consequence for the Parties: The order refusing permission to compound the offence (previously made by the Additional Sessions Judge) stands; the High Court did not allow the requested compounding in the present proceedings and has not set aside the conviction. Instead, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide the two formulated questions of law.

Broader Implications: The opinion does not establish a new binding precedent resolving the legal question; rather, it refers the issue for authoritative determination by a Larger Bench. The judge noted that the question involves the interplay between statutory compounding provisions (Section 320) and inherent powers (Section 482), and declared that the express statutory prohibition in Section 320(9) presents a bar to using Section 482 to permit compounding of non-enumerated offences.

Disposition

The file is to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to answer the two specified questions of law.

Show full summary ...

    Mohan Singh & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan

    N.L Tibrewal, J.:— The petitioner Mohan Singh was prosecuted under Section 326 IPC and ultimately convicted by the Trial Magistrate and sentenced to one year RI and fine Rs. 1000/- vide judgment dated 29-3-1985.

    2. Against his conviction and sentences, he preferred an appeal which was Pending for disposal in the Court of Additional District & Sessions, Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (Camp Sambhar Lake). Before the Appellate Court, an application was moved which was signed by the accused petitioner Mohan Singh and the complainant Gulab Singh, with a prayer to grant permission to compound the offence of 326 IPC under which the petitioner Mohan Singh was convicted by the Trial Magistrate. The application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on February 8, 1991 on the ground that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable as such, no permission to compound the said offence can be granted.

    3. Now this petition has been filed jointly by the accused and the complainant under Section 482 Cr. P.C before this Court, being aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge refusing the permission to compound the offence under Section 326 IPC.

    4. I have heard Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sharm, the learned Public Prosecutor. Mr. Mishra urges that though the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable but this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C can allow composition of the offence of secure the ends of justice in the special circumstances of a particular case. The learned counsel submits that there are special circumstances in the case which were narrated in the application moved before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, a certified copy of the same has also been filed along with this petition. The learned counsel has also placed reliance in Hari Narain v. State of Rajasthan (1), paras No. 5 to 6 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below as the learned counsel has placed reliance on the same:—

    “5. It is true that the offence under Sec. 326 IPC is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court, but nothing in the Code prevents this Court under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C to allow composition to secure the ends of justice in the special circumstances of a particular case. The special circumstances in the case are that the appellants and the injured are real cousins, there was some dispute between them relating to the aforesaid agricultural land which had been gifted by the Khatedar Badri Narain (PW/9). A counter FIR had also been lodged by Sita Ram against the complainant party. Injuries had also been sustained by Madan Lal and Sita Ram appellants. The land dispute has been settled between the parties and, now they are in good relations. In view of all these facts, it appears just and proper to allow composition of the offence between the complainants and the appellants.

    6. It is therefore, directed that the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur will accord permission to the injured complainants and the appellants compound the offences after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied that the compromise has been agreed upon. The parties are directed to present themselves before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 27.05.1989, for the above purpose. The file of the trial Court and the application for compounding the offence may be transmitted to the trial Court immediately.”

    5. Contrary to this, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that Section 32 Cr. P.C deals with compounding of offences. The learned counsel submits that only those offences punishable under the section of IPC specified in the first columns of the table (giving in that section) may be compounded with the permission of the Court or without permission as provided in that section. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the offence under Section 326 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and cannot be compounded even with the permission of the Court. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a thing which is not permissible under the law cannot be allowed to be permitted in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C

    6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above rival contentions. Section 320 IPC is the only provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with compounding of offences. From the perusal of the said provision it is clear that only those offences enumerated in the two tables given in the said section can he compounded either with permission of the Court or without permission as per the said provision. It is further noteworthy that the effect of the composition of offences is acquittal of the accused for the offence which has been compounded as provided under sub-section (8) of Section 320 Cr. P.C Then Sub-section (9) of the said section reads as follows:— “No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section.”

    7. The aforesaid sub-section (9) makes it clear that the court has power only to allow composition of offence which are provided in Section 320 Cr. P.C and except those offences, no other offence can be compounded. This Sub-section creates a complete bar on the powers of the Courts also.

    8. Then a further question of law arises for consideration as to whether a thing can be permitted to be done which has been expressly prohibited under the law. The power to be exercised under Section 482 Cr. P.C is in its nature extraordinary. It is also a settled law that no Court can claim inherent jurisdiction to exercise powers which are expressly taken away by legislation. When there are express provisions of law, there is no inherent power in the High Court to override them. No Court can invoke new categories of inherent jurisdiction.

    9. I am of the confirmed view that in view of sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C the offences other than enumerated in the two tables given in that section, cannot be compounded. When there is an express legislative prohibition then the same cannot be done in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C

    10. What I have stated above does not mean that the Court cannot quash the proceedings, in a given case, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C in order to secure ends of justice. This view I have taken in another case. But here, the petitioner Mohan Singh has been convicted under Section 326 IPC by the Trial Court and his conviction cannot be set aside and he cannot be acquitted allowing the composition of offence under Section 326 IPC, which is otherwise not permissible.

    11. Therefore, I am of the view that this matter requires an authoritative judgment by a Larger Bench on the following question of law:—

    (i) Whether composition of offence/offences, except as provided by Section, 320 Cr. P.C can be permitted in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C specially when sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C expressly prohibits;

    (ii) If the answer is given in affirmative, whether this permission can be granted after the conviction of the accused under the offence/offences which is/are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C

    12. Let the file of this case be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide the aforesaid questions of law.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Mohan Singh & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan
    (Apr 29, 1991)