Indian Law Portal

Make crime pay. Become a Lawyer

HOME BLOGS COVID 19 OPPORTUNITIES  CONTACT US

 SEPTEMBER 24, 2020  BY GEETANJALI BANERJEE

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

Court Supreme Court of India

Decided on 24th September 2012

Citations 10 SCC 303

Case No. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)

 NO. 8989 OF 2010

Bench R.M. Lodha, Anil R. Dave, Sudhansu

Jyoti Mukhopadhaya

Appellant Gian Singh

Respondents State of Punjab & Another.

Reference Section 420 and Section

120B, Indian Penal code,1860.
Section 320 and Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
1973

Abstract

This paper will deal with compoundable and non-compoundable offences, and
when the high court can quash any criminal proceedings. In what situations can
the High court quash any proceeding is discussed. Since this case involves the
petitioner being accused of a compoundable offence and a non-compoundable
offence, it is interesting to see the take of the Supreme court on this matter,
because it can be logically deduced that non-compoundable offences cannot be
made compoundable if the offence is serious involving harm to society and the
act itself is heinous as such, but if the offence is more personal and can be
resolved by the parties then the court can turn non-compoundable offences into
a compoundable one.

Introduction

To compound means “to settle a matter by a money payment, instead of other

liability.” In criminal law, the power to compound the offence is at the discretion
of the victim. Legal provisions regarding compounding of offences are mentioned
under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The object of
Section 320 of the Code is to promote friendliness between the parties so that
peace between them is restored.

Compounding of Offences means to establish a compromise between two

parties, where the complainant agrees to have the charges dropped against the
accused. On this basis, offenses are divided into 2 categories:

Compoundable Offences
Non-Compoundable Offences

Compoundable offences are those that can be compromised, i.e. the complainant
can agree to take back the charges levied against the accused, whereas, non –
compoundable offences are the more serious offences in which the parties
cannot compromise.

Background

The petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 and Section 120B, of the
Indian Penal Code by the learned Magistrate. He filed an appeal challenging his
conviction before the Sessions Judge. While his appeal was pending, he applied
to the learned Sessions Judge for compounding the offense, 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 offense. 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.

Facts

The petitioner is has been accused of :

Section 420, Indian Penal Code

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property —Whoever cheats and
thereby dishonestly induces the person de­ceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code

120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. —

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense punishable

with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two
years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offense.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy

to commit an offense punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with
fine or with both.]
It should be noted here that Section 320, Cr.P.C. mentions certain offenses as
compoundable, certain other offenses as compoundable with the permission of
the Court, and the other offenses as non- compoundable.

Section 420, IPC, is a compoundable offense with permission of the Court given
Section 320, Cr.P.C. but Section 120B IPC, the other hand on which the
petitioner has been convicted, is a non-compoundable offense.

Issue

According to the learned judges of this case, they believe that non-
compoundable offenses cannot be permitted to be compounded by the Court,
whether directly or indirectly.

In the following cases B.S. Joshi v. the State of Haryana[1]; Nikhil Merchant v. Central
Bureau of Investigation and Another [2]; and Manoj Sharma v. State and Others[3],
the Court has indirectly permitted compounding of non-compoundable offenses.

The judges thought that the above three decisions require to be re-considered
as, in their opinion, something which cannot be done directly cannot be done
indirectly.
Related Provisions

Section 482, Cr.P.C.

 Saving of inherent power of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed

to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as
may be 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.

Section 320 of the code deals with the compounding of offenses. These are
less serious and are of two different types as mentioned under S. 320 in two
different tables:

1. Compounding without the permission of the Court– Examples of these

offenses include adultery, causing hurt, defamation criminal trespass.

2. Court permission is required before compounding – Examples of such

offenses are theft, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, assault on a woman to
outrage her modesty, dishonest misappropriation of property amongst
others, criminal breach of trust.

Compounding without the permission of the Court:

The offenses punishable under the Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
specified in the first two columns of the table next following may be
 compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table.

Few examples of such offenses are:

Offense Section of the I.P.C. Person by whom

applicable offense may be
compounded

Uttering words, etc. 298 The person whose

with deliberate intent religious feelings are
to wound the religious intended to be
feelings of the person wounded

Causing hurt 323, 334 The person to whom

the hurt is caused

Wrongfully restraining 341, 342 The person restrained

confining any person or confined

Assault or use of 352, 355, 358 The person assaulted

criminal force or to whom criminal
force is used 

Mischief, when the only 426, 427 The person to whom

loss or damage caused the loss or damage is
is loss or damage to a caused
private person

Criminal trespass 447 The person in

possession of the
property trespassed
upon

House-trespass 448 The person in

possession of the
property trespassed
upon

Court permission is required before compounding –

Offense Section of the I.P.C. Person by whom

applicable offense may be
compounded

Voluntarily causing 325 The person to whom

grievous hurt hurt is caused

Voluntarily causing 335 The person to whom

grievous hurt on grave hurt is caused
and sudden
provocation
Causing hurt by doing 337 The person to whom
an act so rashly and hurt is caused
negligently as to
endanger human life or
the personal safety of
others

Causing grievous hurt 338 The person to whom

by doing an act so hurt is caused
rashly and negligently
as to endanger human
life or the personal
safety of others

Wrongfully confining a 343 The person confined

person for three days
or more

Wrongfully confining 344 The person confined

for ten or more days

Wrongfully confining a 346 The person confined

person in secret

Assault or criminal 354 The woman assaulted

force to woman with to whom the criminal
 intent to outrage her force was used
modesty

The offenses punishable under the Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with the
permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offense is
pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that
Table. Few examples of such offenses are:

Related Cases

Narinder Singh v. the State of Punjab[4]

In the Narinder Singh Case, the Supreme Court took into consideration the Gian
Singh Case and observed that the high court can quash the criminal proceedings
even in case of non-compoundable offenses in the exercise of its inherent power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C when the parties have entered into a
compromise. However, this power must be used sparingly and with caution. The
Supreme Court observed that even though offense under Section 307 of the IPC
is against the society, the high courts can examine whether the incorporation of
Section 307 of the IPC is for namesake or there is enough evidence to prove it.
The Supreme Court ultimately laid down that the decision in the Narinder Singh
Case must be read harmoniously and as a whole in the circumstances existing
therein.

In light of catena of decisions and considering the law on the point, the Supreme
Court laid down the following guidelines for quashing criminal proceeding in
case of non-compoundable offenses by high courts when invoking their inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C:

The State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat [5]

The Supreme Court noted that, in the Shambhu Kewat Case, it was observed that
the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by Section 320 of the CrPC while
compounding of offenses and it is guided solely by it. On the other hand, the high
court is guided by the material on record to form an opinion on whether to quash
a criminal complaint in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The
exercise of this power is to meet the ends of justice, although the ultimate
consequence of this may be acquittal or dismissal of an indictment.

Judgment
The power of the High Court in quashing any 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 offenses 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 exercising such power, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offenses
of mental depravity or offenses like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled
the dispute.

In light of catena of decisions and considering the law on the point, the Supreme
Court laid down the following guidelines for quashing criminal proceeding in
case of non-compoundable offenses by high courts when invoking their inherent
powers under Section 482 of the CrPC:

Predominantly civil nature of offense – The power conferred on high

Courts under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceeding for non-
compoundable offenses under Section 320 of the CrPC can be exercised
where the offense involved is merely a predominantly civil and commercial
matter;
Heinous and serious offenses – High courts must refrain from quashing
criminal proceedings if the offense is a heinous and serious offense which
has a serious impact on society;
Offenses under Section 307 IPC – Even though the offense under Section
307 IPC falls under the category of heinous and serious offenses and is
against the society, the high courts may not rest its decision merely on the
fact that the offense involved is under Section 307 of the IPC. The high court
may examine whether the incorporation of Section 307 of the IPC is for
namesake or there is enough evidence to prove it. For this purpose, the high
court may examine the nature of the injury, whether the injury is on a vital
body part, the nature of the weapon used, etc. This would be permissible
only after the evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed / charge is
framed and / or during the trial. It is not permissible when the matter is
under investigation;
Special statutes – The high court must refrain from quashing the criminal
proceeding based on a compromise between the victim and the offender if
the offense is under a special statute like Prevention of Corruption Act or
committed by public servants while working in that capacity;
 Antecedents/conduct of the accused – When the offenses involved are
private, the high court, while exercising its power under Section 482 of the
CrPC in respect of non-compoundable offenses on the ground that there is a
compromise/settlement between the victim and accused, is required to
consider the antecedents and conduct of the accused.

Conclusion

The 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.

References

https://www.mondaq.com/india/trials-appeals-
compensation/793048/compounding-of-non-compoundable-offences-by-
high-courts-under-section-482-of-crpc-supreme-court-re-affirms-position
https://lawtimesjournal.in/compounding-of-offences/#_edn1
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69949024/

[1] (2003) 4 SCC 675

[2] 2008) 9 SCC 677

[3] 2008) 16 SCC 1

[4] (2014) 6 SCC 466) (Narinder Singh Case)

[5] ((2014) 4 SCC 149) (Shambu Kewat Case)

POSTED IN CRIMINAL LAW, CRPC •

TAGGED CRPC, GIAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

Published by Geetanjali Banerjee

View all posts by Geetanjali Banerjee

PREV NEXT
Avinsh Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi Arsenic and its toxic value
(Bazee.com Case)

One Reply to “Gian Singh v. State of Punjab”

Pingback: Marry your rapist: An unending saga of compromise in Rape Cases –

The Criminal Law Blog

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment
Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
 POST COMMENT

As soon as I did the research, I realized the law seems to be on my side and I filed the suit.

                                  – Micheal Newdow

RECENT POSTS

Adoption of COVID-ORPHANS

Difference between BA, BBA, BCom LLB

Insurance Validity extended till 21st April amid COVID-19 lockdown

OPPORTUNITIES

ProofRiders

Call for Interns: ILP

Call for Campus Ambassdors

 Search … 

FOLLOW US!

CONTACT INFO

For Internship Application: intership.ilp@gmail.com

For Blog Submissions:

submission.ilp@gmail.com

For Other Queries:

info.indianlawportal@gmail.com

CATEGORIES
 Select Category

Indian Law Portal

About US
Indian Law Portal is an emerging
law portal with the intent to be
India’s go to law portal… Our aim is
to provide ease to best Content and
develop future lawyers… It is an
online platform of which solemn
focus is to provide guidance and
create a relationship between the
law students and research. It seeks
to devote all the success and
accomplishments to the budding
lawyers forming the ILP Team. 
Opportunities
NLIU Bhopal: Call for Blogs
ILP: Call for Interns
Call for Campus Ambassdors
info.indianlawportal@gmail.com
Contact US
For Internship Application:
intership.ilp@gmail.com
For Blog Submissions:
submission.ilp@gmail.com
For Other Queries:

@Copyright 2020 –IndianLawPortal