9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues involved: Conviction under Section 420 and Section 120B, IPC, compounding of offences, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR, interpretation of Section 320 Cr.P.C., reconsideration of previous decisions allowing compounding of non-compoundable offences.
In the judgment, the petitioner was convicted under Section 420 and Section 120B, IPC by the Magistrate and filed an appeal challenging the conviction. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner applied for compounding the offence, which was to be taken up with the main appeal. Subsequently, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR based on compounding was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the filing of the current petition before the Supreme Court. The petitioner's counsel cited three previous decisions of the Court, including B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI, and Manoj Sharma vs. State, where compounding of non-compoundable offences was indirectly allowed. However, the Court noted that while Section 420 IPC is compoundable with permission of the Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C., Section 120B IPC, relating to criminal conspiracy, is a non-compoundable offence and cannot be permitted to be compounded. The Court emphasized that it cannot amend the statute and must exercise judicial restraint, as only the legislature can amend Section 320 Cr.P.C. The Court expressed the view that non-compoundable offences should not be permitted to be compounded directly or indirectly, indicating a need to reconsider the previous decisions allowing such compounding. Acknowledging that one of the judges was part of the previous decisions, the Court highlighted the importance of being open to correcting mistakes and directed the matter to be placed before a larger Bench for reconsideration of the correctness of the earlier decisions. The papers of the case were to be submitted to the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger Bench for further deliberation.
|
