Breaking- Conviction In A Non-Compoundable Case Can't Be Set Aside By HC U/S482CrPC On The Ground Of Compromise Except In Rarest Of Rare Cases: Bombay HC (FB)

In a significant judgment, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, [Nagpur Bench] on Tuesday held that the High Court while exercising the inherent powers under Sec. 482 CrPC cannot set aside the order of conviction of accused in a non-compoundable case merely on the ground that the accused and complainant had arrived at a compromise at a post conviction stage. However the same can be done only in the rarest of the rare cases depending upon the individual facts and circumstances of each case. The observation came in the wake of a reference made by a division bench of the High Court after a conflict of decisions was observed in three different judgments pronounced by the division bench of the High Court. BACKGROUND OF THE REFERENCE The question of reference came into existence after a division bench of the High Court was of the view that exercise of power under Sec. 482 of CrPC for quashing and setting aside the conviction order must be rarely exercised and the power must be invoked in exceptional circumstances only. The division bench while disagreeing with the four decisions of the High Court following the same proposition framed two questions and sought reference to be made by a larger bench. Accordingly, a three judge bench of the High Court convened to answer the questions so framed. The four cases that formed the basis of the reference were: Udhav Kisanrao Ghodse v. State of Maharashtra: The accused was convicted of Sec. 354 and Sec. 447 of IPC. Since the accused and informant arrived at a compromise, the accused approached High Court under Sec. 482 CrPC wherein the division bench while relying on Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v. State of Maharashtra 2008 (Bombay HC) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2002) 10 SCC 303 set aside the conviction order and the informant was permitted to compound the offences including Sec. 354 of IPC which is a non compoundable offence. This was done in order to maintain "cordial relations in future which is necessary for the society."Ajmatkhan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra: The accused was convicted under Sec. 354 and Sec. 452 of IPC and the division bench of the High Court after following Udhav Kisanrao judgment set aside the conviction order following the same observation.Shivaji Haribhai Jawanjal v. State of Maharashtra: The accused was conviction under Sec. 323, 354, 452 and 506 of IPC. The accused and complainant approached the High Court under Sec. 482 CrPC on the ground of them arriving at a settlement. The division bench of the High Court while relying on judgment of Kiran Tulshiram Ingale v. Anupama P. Gaikwad & Ors. (2006) (Bombay HC) held that powers under Sec. 482 can be exercised in cases where a settlement is reached even after the conviction of the accused. This was observed after considering the aspect of restoration of the offender. However, the position conflicted after the judgment in Maya Sanjay Khandare & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra. The accused was convicted under Sec. 354D and 506 of IPC along with Sec. 3(1)(xi) of SC ST Act, 1989. The division bench after relying on previous decisions came to the conclusion that powers under Sec. 482 CrPC can be rarely exercised and it cannot be exercised merely on the ground of settlement of the parties. It was after the conflict in opinion resulting from the judgment of Maya Sanjay Khandare case that the matter was referred to a larger bench. QUESTIONS OF REFERENCE In a prosecution which has culminated in a conviction, whether the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised for quashing the prosecution/conviction altogether, (instead of maintaining it and considering the issue of modification of the sentence) upon a settlement between the convict and the victim/complainant?Whether the broader principles/parameters as set out in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir and others vs. State of Gujrat (2017) 9 SCC 641 have been correctly applied in deciding Udhav Kisanrao Ghodse, Ajmatkhan Rahematkhan and Shivaji Haribhau Jawanjal ? SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICANTS The applicants had argued that the high court in the exercise of powers under Sec. 482 CrPC, even after the conviction, can end the dispute if a settlement has been reached between the accused and the complainant. It was also argued that in such cases, reformative theory has to be taken into consideration. He relied on the case of Shivaji Haribhau judgment to substantiate the argument. Furthermore, it was argued that once the requirements of Sec. 482 are met so as to prevent an abuse of power of the any Court or to secure the ends of justice, the proceedings can be quashed notwithstanding the fact that the conviction order was already passed against the accused. Merely because the order of conviction was pending adjudication at the appellate or revisional...

Breaking- Conviction In A Non-Compoundable Case Can't Be Set Aside By HC U/S482CrPC On The Ground Of Compromise Except In Rarest Of Rare Cases: Bombay HC (FB)

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Breaking- Conviction In A Non-Compoundable Case Can't Be Set Aside By HC U/S482CrPC On The Ground Of Compromise Except In Rarest Of Rare Cases: Bombay HC (FB)

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers