MANU/SC/8122/2008

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1619 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5265 of 2007)

Decided On: 16.10.2008

Appellants: Manoj Sharma Vs. Respondent: State and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Altamas Kabirand Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The question whether a First Information Report under Sections 420/468/471/34/120B IPC can be quashed either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution, when the accused and the complainant have compromised and settled the matter between themselves, is the question which arises for decision in this appeal.

3. The identical question fell for the consideration of this Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana   MANU/SC/0230/2003 : 2003CriLJ2028 wherein also the question arose as to whether criminal proceedings or a First Information Report or complaint filed under Section 498A and 406 IPC by the wife could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on account of the fact that the offences complained of were not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. The objection taken in the said case has also been raised by Mr. B.B. Singh, learned advocate for the respondent State.

4. In B.S. Joshi's case, this Court drew a distinction between compounding an offence as permitted under Section 320 CrPC and quashing of the complaint or criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC as also Article 226 of the Constitution. Pointing out that the appellant in the said case had not prayed for compounding the offence as the same was not compoundable, this Court observed with reference to the earlier decision in Pepsi Food Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate   MANU/SC/1090/1998 : 1998CriLJ1 , that where the Court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or rigid formulae to be followed by the Courts could not be laid down. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole object of preventing abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It was also observed that it is well settled that these powers have no bar, but the same was required to be exercised with utmost care and caution. Accordi........