Gian Singh Petitioner v. State Of Punjab & Another S, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Neutral Citations

2010 INSC 803

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No. 8989 of 2010

Disposition

Attorney(S)

Rajiv Kataria

Judges

Justice Markandey Katju
Justice Gyan Sudha Misra

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Magistrate for offences under Section 420 (cheating) and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. He filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge and, during the pendency of that appeal, moved an application seeking permission to compound the offences. While the compounding application allegedly awaited consideration, he filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the High Court to quash the FIR on the ground that the matter had been compromised. The High Court dismissed that petition, prompting the present matter before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether courts can allow compounding or quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences (specifically Section 120B IPC) by invoking their inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the earlier two-Judge Bench decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, and Manoj Sharma v. State—which had indirectly permitted such compounding—were correctly decided.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Relied on the following Supreme Court decisions to contend that even non-compoundable offences can be terminated on the basis of a compromise:
  • B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675;
  • Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677; and
  • Manoj Sharma v. State (2008) 16 SCC 1.
Submitted that these authorities justified quashing of the FIR despite Section 120B IPC being non-compoundable.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675	Court may quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C when parties have settled, even for offences technically non-compoundable.	The present Bench expressed that this approach may be incorrect and needs reconsideration by a larger Bench.
Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677	Permitted quashing of criminal proceedings in economic offences after settlement between parties.	Cited by petitioner; the Court doubted its correctness and referred the matter for larger Bench review.
Manoj Sharma v. State (2008) 16 SCC 1	Extended the principle of compromise-based quashing to Section 406/420 IPC and allied offences.	Similarly questioned by the Court; to be examined afresh by a larger Bench.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Section 320 Cr.P.C exhaustively classifies offences into compoundable (with or without court permission) and non-compoundable categories; subsection (7) declares that offences not listed are non-compoundable.
2. While Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the court’s permission, Section 120B IPC is not compoundable at all. The conviction on the conspiracy count is therefore immune from compromise.
3. Allowing compounding of a non-compoundable offence would, in effect, amend Section 320 Cr.P.C—an act beyond judicial power and reserved solely for Parliament.
4. The Court invoked the canon that “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly,” signalling that use of Section 482 Cr.P.C to circumvent the statutory bar is impermissible.
5. Observing that the three earlier two-Judge Bench rulings had effectively sanctioned such circumvention, the Bench held that those authorities appear incorrectly decided and require authoritative reconsideration.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: The matter is referred to a larger Bench; the papers be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate constitution of that Bench.

Immediate effect: The petition is not finally decided on merits, and no permission to compound the Section 120B offence is granted. The broader question of whether courts can quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise remains open and will be addressed by the larger Bench. No new precedent is set until that determination.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Gian Singh Petitioner v. State Of Punjab & Another S

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 and Section 120B, IPC by the learned Magistrate. He filed an appeal challenging his conviction before the learned Sessions Judge. While his appeal was pending, he filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge for compounding the offence, which, according to the learned counsel, was directed to be taken up along with the main appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR on the ground of compounding the offence. That petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been dismissed by the High Court by its impugned order. Hence, this petition has been filed in this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on three decisions of this Court, all by two Judge Benches. They are B.S Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2008) 9 SCC 677; and Manoj Sharma v. State and Others (2008) 16 SCC 1. In these decisions, this Court has indirectly permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. One of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, was a member to the last two decisions.

Section 320, Cr.P.C mentions certain offences as compoundable, certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the Court, and the other offences as non-compoundable vide Section 320(7).

Section 420, IPC, one of the counts on which the petitioner has been convicted, no doubt, is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court in view of Section 320, Cr.P.C but Section 120B IPC, the other count on which the petitioner has been convicted, is a non-compoundable offence. Section 120B(criminal conspiracy) is a separate offence and since it is a non-compoundable offence, we cannot permit it to be compounded.

The Court cannot amend the statute and must maintain judicial restraint in this connection. The Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or executive. It is the legislature alone which can amend Section 320 Cr.P.C

We are of the opinion that the above three decisions require to be re-considered as, in our opinion, something which cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. In our, prima facie, opinion, non-compoundable offences cannot be permitted to be compounded by the Court, whether directly or indirectly. Hence, the above three decisions do not appear to us to be correctly decided.

It is true that in the last two decisions, one of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, was a member but a Judge should always be open to correct his mistakes. We feel that these decisions require re-consideration and hence we direct that this matter be placed before a larger Bench to reconsider the correctness of the aforesaid three decisions.

Let the papers of this case be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench.

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.

Gian Singh Petitioner v. State Of Punjab & Another S

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Gian Singh Petitioner v. State Of Punjab & Another S

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience