top of page
Question Bank
Question
Explain the distinction between the 'compounding of offences' under Section 320 of the CrPC and the 'quashing of proceedings' under Section 482 of the CrPC, especially in the context of non-compoundable offences.
Solution
The compounding of an offence is a statutory right provided under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It is a process where the complainant and the accused enter into a mutual agreement, leading to the termination of the criminal proceedings, resulting in the acquittal of the accused. This provision explicitly lists which offences are compoundable, either with or without the court's permission. Section 320(9) creates a statutory bar, stating that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. In contrast, the quashing of proceedings is an inherent power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. This power is not derived from any statute but is inherent by virtue of the High Court's position. It is exercised to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. While compounding is a right restricted to listed offences, quashing is a discretionary power that can be invoked even for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is predominantly private and the continuation of the case would be a futile exercise.
Question
What is the scope and objective of the 'inherent powers' of the High Court as preserved under Section 482 of the CrPC?
Solution
The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC are of wide amplitude and are saved with the phrase "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect" them. The core objective of this power is threefold: firstly, to give effect to any order under the CrPC; secondly, to prevent abuse of the process of any court; and thirdly, to secure the ends of justice. These powers are not conferred anew by the CrPC but are recognized as pre-existing, necessary for a court of record to ensure that its process is not misused to harass individuals. The power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly and with great caution. It serves as a vital instrument to ensure that the machinery of the criminal justice system does not become a tool for oppression and that real and substantial justice is achieved.
Question
Under what circumstances can a criminal proceeding for a non-compoundable offence be quashed by the High Court based on a settlement between the parties?
Solution
A criminal proceeding for a non-compoundable offence can be quashed by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction when the dispute is overwhelmingly and predominantly of a civil flavour. This typically includes matters arising from commercial transactions, financial dealings, mercantile disputes, partnership conflicts, or matrimonial disputes (such as those related to dowry) where the wrong is essentially private. The court must be satisfied that the settlement between the offender and the victim is voluntary and bona fide. The key consideration is that the possibility of a conviction is remote and bleak, and forcing a trial would cause extreme injustice and oppression to the accused. The ultimate guiding factor is whether continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law and contrary to the interest of securing the ends of justice.
Question
Which categories of offences are generally considered non-compoundable and cannot be quashed solely based on a compromise between the parties?
Solution
Offences that are heinous and serious in nature and have a significant impact on society at large cannot be quashed merely because the private parties have settled. This category includes, but is not limited to, offences like murder, rape, and dacoity, which are crimes against the state and society. Furthermore, offences involving mental depravity or moral turpitude, such as those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, or offences committed by public servants in their official capacity, fall into this prohibited category. The settlement in such cases is irrelevant as these crimes are not private wrongs but public wrongs, and allowing quashing would be detrimental to public policy and the state's duty to prosecute serious crimes.
Question
What is the legal principle encapsulated in the maxim 'ex debito justitiae' in the context of the High Court's inherent powers?
Solution
The Latin maxim 'ex debito justitiae' translates to "as a debt of justice," meaning that something is owed as a matter of right in the interest of justice. In the context of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, this principle signifies that the power to quash proceedings is exercised as a duty to deliver complete and substantial justice. When the High Court finds that the continuation of a criminal case would result in a miscarriage of justice or would be nothing more than an empty formality, it is not just its right but its judicial obligation to intervene. This principle empowers the court to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice, ensuring that its process is not used to perpetuate injustice, thereby acting ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice.
bottom of page