CrPC | S.482 Cannot Be Invoked When Alternative Remedy For Compounding Offenses U/S 320(1) Is Available: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked when an alternative remedy is available under Section 320(1) for the compounding of offences.The ruling came as the court dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The court emphasized that...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked when an alternative remedy is available under Section 320(1) for the compounding of offences.
The ruling came as the court dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The court emphasized that the statutory right to compound such offences, as provided under Section 320(1) of the Cr.P.C., negates the necessity of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, who presided over the matter, addressed the petitioners' argument that the FIR should be quashed since the parties had amicably settled the dispute. The petitioners contended that continuing the legal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the court's process.
However, the court clarified that the offences mentioned in the FIR are compoundable under Section 320(1) of the Cr.P.C., allowing the parties to settle the matter without requiring the court's intervention. Justice Kainthla stated, "There exists no reason to exercise the extraordinary power vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the alternative remedy is available."
In reaching this conclusion, the court referred to several key legal precedents. The judgment in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977), was particularly highlighted, where the Supreme Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 should not be exercised when a specific legal remedy is already provided.
The petitioners had also cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012), to support their argument that the High Court could quash FIRs even in cases involving compoundable offences.
However, the court clarified that the Gian Singh judgment does not override the clear statutory framework established by Section 320(1) of the Cr.P.C., which explicitly allows for the compounding of certain offences without the high court's intervention.
Justice Kainthla further cited B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003), to reinforce that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly, particularly when the law provides a specific remedy.
In its ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court also referred to the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Gopal Dass vs State, AIR 1978 Del 138, which emphasized the limits of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The Delhi High Court had ruled that the inherent powers of the High Court, although broad, should be exercised only in cases where there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to address the issue at hand, asserting that these powers are intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process or to secure the ends of justice, but they should not be used to override explicit statutory provisions.
The court concluded that the petitioners' failure to pursue the statutory remedy available under Section 320(1) made their petition to quash the FIR under Section 482 untenable. Cautioning that invoking the High Court's inherent powers in such situations would undermine the statutory provisions specifically designed to address the compounding of offences, the court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Mohan Singh & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 50