Supreme Court allows quashing of non-compoundable offenses based on compromise: Ramgopal & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 657

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI and Surya Kant, J.

Can a criminal case be dismissed if the victim and the accused reach a compromise, even if the offense is considered non-compoundable under the law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, examining the extent of the High Court’s power to quash such cases in light of settlements between parties. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be terminated despite the non-compoundable nature of the offense, focusing on the need for justice and the specific facts of each case. The bench comprised of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Surya Kant, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

The Supreme Court of India addressed two criminal appeals together, as they both involved the same legal question regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, even when the offenses were non-compoundable.

In Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012, the case arose from an incident on 3rd November 2000, in Morena, Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were accused of assaulting the complainant, Padam Singh, over a monetary dispute. Appellant No. 1 allegedly cut off the complainant’s little finger with a ‘pharsa,’ while Appellant No. 2 struck him with a lathi. They were charged under Sections 294, 323, and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989. The trial court convicted them under Sections 294, 323, and 326 read with 34 IPC, but acquitted them of the remaining charges.

During the pendency of their appeal, the appellants and the complainant reached a compromise on 13th September 2006. The Additional Sessions Judge compounded the offenses under Sections 294 and 323 read with 34 IPC but maintained the conviction under Section 326 read with 34 IPC, as it was a non-compoundable offense. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh also upheld the conviction, although it reduced the sentence to the period already served.

In Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012, the incident occurred on 28th January 1995, in Shimoga, Karnataka. The appellants, along with other family members, were accused of assaulting the complainant because he had provided information to forest officials, causing them financial loss. They lured the complainant to their house, tied him up, and assaulted him with weapons. The trial court convicted them under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 342, 324, and 326 read with 149 IPC. The High Court of Karnataka upheld their conviction under Section 326 of the IPC. The parties had also reached a compromise, but it was not presented to the Trial Court or the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

In Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012, the Judicial Magistrate (FC), Ambah, convicted the appellants under Sections 294, 323, and 326 read with 34 of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, while acknowledging the compromise, upheld the conviction under Section 326 read with 34 IPC, reducing the sentence from three years to one year. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh further reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but did not allow the compounding of the offense under Section 326 of the IPC.

In Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012, the trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 342, 324, and 326 read with 149 of the IPC. The High Court of Karnataka acquitted some of the co-accused but maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The compromise between the parties was not presented before either the trial court or the High Court.

Both cases were then brought before the Supreme Court, where a two-judge bench initially granted leave to appeal and referred the matter to a larger bench, awaiting the decision in *Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab*. This reference was to determine whether non-compoundable offenses could be quashed based on a compromise between the parties.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., along with the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. lists the offenses that are compoundable, meaning they can be settled by the parties involved without further court proceedings. However, offenses under Section 326 of the IPC, which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, are specifically excluded from this list, making them non-compoundable.

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. grants inherent powers to the High Court to make orders 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. This section allows the High Court to take actions that are not explicitly stated in the Code but are necessary for justice.

Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. This power is not limited by any statutory provisions.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles laid down in *Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab* and *State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.*, which discussed the circumstances under which a High Court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses based on a compromise.

Arguments

The Appellants argued that the High Court should use its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or the Supreme Court should use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the criminal proceedings, given that they had reached a compromise with the complainants. They contended that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process and would not serve the ends of justice. The appellants relied on the judgments in *Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab* and *State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.* to support their argument that the court has the power to quash non-compoundable offenses when the matter is primarily private in nature and a compromise has been reached.

The State, on the other hand, opposed the quashing of proceedings, arguing that Section 326 of the IPC is a non-compoundable offense and should not be quashed merely based on a compromise. They maintained that the High Court does not have the power to compound such offenses, and the Supreme Court should not exercise its powers under Article 142 to override the statutory provisions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses, specifically under Section 326 of the IPC, based on a compromise between the parties, by using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or whether the Supreme Court can use its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do the same.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and the relevant legal precedents, held that both the High Court and the Supreme Court have the power to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offenses, when a compromise has been reached between the parties.

The Court also analyzed how the authorities were viewed:

• *Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab* [(2012) 10 SCC 303]: The Court followed this authority, reiterating that the High Court has inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
• *State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.* [(2019) 5 SCC 688]: The Court followed this authority, emphasizing the conditions under which such powers can be exercised, particularly for offenses of a private nature.
• *Union Carbide Corporation & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.* [(1991) 4 SCC 584]: The Court relied on this authority to assert that the powers under Article 142 are not limited by statutory provisions.
• *Monica Kumar & Anr. vs. State of U.P.* [(2008) 8 SCC 781], *Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India* [(2014) 2 SCC 532], *Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India* [(1998) 4 SCC 409]: The Court relied on these authorities to reiterate the wide amplitude of the powers under Article 142 to do complete justice.
• *Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.* [(2014) 6 SCC 466]: The Court used this authority to highlight the caution to be exercised while quashing proceedings in heinous offenses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the nature of the offenses, the voluntary compromise between the parties, and the need to secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that the offenses were not heinous, were primarily private in nature, and that the parties had willingly settled their disputes. The Court also considered that continuing the criminal proceedings would not serve any public interest and might lead to injustice.

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations (the private nature of the dispute, the compromise, and the non-heinous nature of the offense) and legal principles (the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution). The Court gave more weightage to the factual aspects of the case, showing that the compromise was genuine and that continuing the proceedings would not serve any public interest.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was structured around several key points:

1. The Court emphasized that while Section 320 Cr.P.C. limits compounding of offenses, it does not restrict the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
   
   “…the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
2. The Court reiterated that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses if the offenses are primarily of a private nature, the parties have settled their dispute amicably, and the victim has consented to the nullification of the proceedings.
   
   “The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable.”
3. The Court highlighted that the power to quash proceedings should be exercised to secure the ends of justice, especially when the offenses do not have a significant impact on society.
   
   “The touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice.”
4. The Court also considered that the offenses in both the cases were not heinous and the parties had voluntarily compromised.
5. The Court noted that the incidents had occurred long ago and there was no evidence of any untoward incidents after the purported compromise.
6. The Court emphasized that quashing the proceedings would advance peace and harmony among the parties.
7. The Court also noted that the administration of criminal justice would remain unaffected by accepting the amicable settlement.

The Court did not have a minority opinion. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses using their inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., especially when the offenses are private in nature and the parties have reached a compromise.
• The Supreme Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution, can also quash criminal proceedings to ensure complete justice, even for non-compoundable offenses.
• The focus is on securing the ends of justice, considering the nature of the offense, the voluntary compromise between the parties, and the impact on society.
• This judgment provides a way to resolve disputes amicably, even after conviction, in cases where the offenses are not heinous and the parties have genuinely settled their differences.
• The judgment emphasizes that the criminal justice system should not be used to perpetuate private disputes when the parties have reconciled.

Directions

In Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012, the Supreme Court directed the appellants and the complainant to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga, within three months to submit their settlement in writing. The C.J.M. was directed to send a report to the Supreme Court regarding the genuineness of the compromise. If the compromise was found to be genuine, the appeal would be disposed of in the same terms as Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012. If no formal settlement was placed before the C.J.M. or the report was to the contrary, the criminal appeal would stand dismissed.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the Supreme Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution, have the power to quash criminal proceedings, including those for non-compoundable offenses, when the offenses are primarily private in nature, the parties have reached a voluntary compromise, and the continuation of proceedings would not serve the ends of justice.

This judgment clarifies and reinforces the principle that the inherent powers of the High Court and the plenary powers of the Supreme Court can be used to ensure justice, even when statutory provisions appear to limit such powers. It also emphasizes that the criminal justice system should be used to promote reconciliation and not perpetuate private disputes when the parties have genuinely settled their differences.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Ramgopal & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh* and *Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka* clarifies that both the High Court and the Supreme Court have the power to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses based on a genuine compromise between the parties. This decision reinforces the principle that the pursuit of justice should not be confined by rigid statutory provisions, especially when the offenses are private in nature and the parties have willingly settled their disputes.