Delhi High Court
Mahinder Singh vs State on 29 October, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 25th October, 2010
Date of Order: 29th October, 2010
+ Crl.M.C.No. 3268/2010 & Crl.MA No. 1632/2010
% 29.10.2010
Mahinder Singh ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Michael Peter, Advocate
Versus
State ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for theState
With Mr. Dheeraj, SI
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 320
Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that this Court should compound the
offence under Section 452 IPC committed by the petitioner in order to secure
the ends of justice and to maintain peace and harmony amongst the disputed
parties, since the petitioner had entered into compromise in respect of other
offences in respect of the same incident.
2. A perusal of documents filed by the petitioner would show that
the petitioner was an accused in FIR No. 319/2000 PS Mandawali and he was
charged by the learned MM under Section 147, 323, 325, 356, 379 & 452 IPC
read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner entered into a compromise with
the victims and an application for compounding of offences was made. As far
as offences under Section 147, 323, 325, 356, 379 IPC are concerned, they
being compoundable offences, the learned MM vide its order dated 25th
March, 2010 allowed compounding of these offences in terms of the
compromise, since, offence under Section 452 IPC does not fall in the list of
compoundable offences so no compounding of this offence was recorded.
Counsel for the petitioner however told the trial Court that the petitioner would
move an petition for quashing of FIR for the offences under Section 452 IPC.
The petitioner instead of filing a petition for quashing of FIR, filed this petition
praying that this Court should compound offence under Section 452 IPC.
3. I consider that compounding can be done by the Court where
trial is pending and not by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since
Section 452 IPC is a non-compoundable offence, this Court in exercise of its
inherent powers cannot make a non-compoundable offence as a
compoundable offence and record a compromise. The inherent powers
granted under Code of Criminal Procedure to this Court are only
supplementary powers in respect of those matters where no provision exists
in Cr.P.C.. Where specific statutory provisions exist in respect of
compounding of offences, this Court using inherent powers cannot pass
orders contrary to statutory provisions or in derogation of statutory provisions.
4. It is argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that under Sub-
Section 3 of Section 320 Cr.P.C, Section 452 IPC becomes compoundable.
Sub-Section 3 of Section 320 Cr.P.C. reads as under:
3) When any offence is compoundable under this
section, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to
commit such offence (When such attempt is itself an
offence) may be compounded in like manner.
5. It is apparent that Sub-Section 3 is applicable only in those
cases where the offence is enumerated as a compoundable offence, in the
schedule given under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Only when an offence is
enumerated as compoundable, abetment of such offence or an attempt to
commit such offence can be compounded in like manner. If an act results into
several offences including a non-compoundable and the compound ability of
other offences would not turn a non-compoundable offence into a
compoundable offence.
6. I find that this petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable
and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is hereby dismissed. However, the
petitioner would be at liberty to file a petition for quashing of FIR.
October 29, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
