High Court has ample power to permit the parties to compound the offence even in a non-compoundable case

Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, praying to quash the F.I.R. in a criminal case, a Single Judge Bench of B.A. Patil, J. quashed the F.I.R. registered for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC as the parties in connection had already entered into a compromise.

The dispute related to the sell of a plot. The complainant alleged that Petitioners 1 and 2, fraudulently, by showing another plot had sold the plot in dispute to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 68,000/-. On enquiring about the plot in dispute from the Rehabilitation Office, the complainant came to know that the plot is not standing in the name of the petitioners. The complainant alleged that with the intention to cause financial loss and to cheat the complainant, they have sold the property. As such, the case was registered.

The learned counsel for the petitioners filed the memorandum of petition under Section 320 read with Section 482 of CrPC, contending that the petitioners and Respondent 2 had entered into a compromise.

The Court perused the averments and documents and found that after the incident took place, there were negotiations and interventions by the elders and well-wishers and the cancellation deed was executed in this behalf. The petitioners also repaid the amount. The matter was settled and the memorandum of settlement under Section 482 of CrPC was submitted.

The High Court followed the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein it was held that the High Court has got ample power under Section 482, CrPC even to permit the parties to compound offences in non-compoundable cases and to quash the criminal proceedings or F.I.R or complaint.

The High Court considered the law laid down in the case mentioned above and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand, and held that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the criminal case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC deserves to be quashed. Accordingly the petitions were allowed. [Erappa v. Somaningappa, Criminal Petition No. 200306/2017, dated August 7, 2017]


Must Watch

The Supreme Court Collegium stated that every individual is entitled to maintain their own dignity and individuality, based on sexual orientation. Senior Advocate Kirpal’s openness about his orientation goes to his credit and rejecting his candidature on this ground would be contrary to the constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

We Recommend

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.