Delhi High Court (August 16, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125530 2001-DLT-94-534 :: 2001-AD (Del)-7-897 NARENDER KUMAR Vs. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi) K. S. GUPTA ( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed alleging that on the complaint made by Narender Kumar, petitioner No. 1, FIR No. 25 of 1996 was registered under sections 147 / 148 / 149 / 452 / 323 / 34 Indian Penal Code at PS Dabri against Dr. Janak raj Dhami, petitioner No. 2 and others; Based on this FIR, chargesheet under sections 147, 148,. 149,452, 323, 325 and 34indian Penal Code had been filed against the accused. In the occurrence dated 9th january 1996 both the parties had assaulted each other thereby causing injuries to Ved Prakash, bhuvnesh Kumar, Smt. Durga Devi and petitioner no. 2. With a view to maintain cordial relations the petitioner No. 1 has compromised the matter with petitioner No. 2 and he is no more desirous in continuing with the criminal case. It was prayed that said FIR No. 25/96 and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom pending before Ms. Swaranjit kaur Mehra, metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi may be quashed. ( 2 ) ALONGWITH petition the affidavits of both the petitioners, Ved Prakash, Bhuvnesh Kumar and Smt-Durga Devi, injured have been filed. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION advanced by Sh,r. M. Tiwari for petitioner was that as the parties have compromised the matter no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings against petitioner No. 2 and co-accused alive. As part of the submission it was further contended by him that though some of the offences for which chargesheet has been filed, are non-compoundable but that would not affect the power of the court to quash the said FIR and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code reliance was placed on the decisions in Haranath mukherjee and others vs. State. 1988 Cri. LJ NOC (CAL) S Gurcharan Singh vs. State- and another 74 (1998) DLT 308 Kapil Dev Gupta Vs. State and another 2000 1 AD (Del) 724 and Naresh Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. State, 2000 5 AD (Del) 579. Submission in, however without merit. In the decision in Ram Lal And another Vs. 1988 Cri. LJ NOC (CAL) S Gurcharan Singh vs. State- and another 74 (1998) DLT 308 Kapil Dev Gupta Vs. State and another 2000 1 AD (Del) 724 and Naresh Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. State, 2000 5 AD (Del) 579. Submission in, however without merit. In the decision in Ram Lal And another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, JT 1999 (1) SC 147 which has quoted with approval by three Judge Bench in the decision in Surendra Nath Mohanty and Another Vs. State of Orissa JT 1999 3 SC 408 the questions of compoundability of non-compoundability offences came to be considered by the Supreme Court and in Paras 3 and 4 it was held:- "3. Section 320 which deals with "compounding of offences" provides two tables therein, one containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded by the person mentioned; in it, and the other containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded with the permission of the court by the person indicated therein. Only such offences as are included in the said two Tables can be compounded. and none else. Sub-section (9) of section 320 of the Code of. Criminal procedure, 1973 imposes a legislative ban in the following terms:- " (9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. " 4. It is apparent. that when the decision in Mahesh Chand (supra) was rendered attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid legal prohibition. Nor was attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y. Suresh Babu ( supra) drawn. Hence those weredecisions rendered perincuriam. We hold that an "offence which law declares to be non- compoundable even with the permission of the court cannot be compunded at all the offence under section 326indian Penal Code is, admittedly non compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel to permit the same to be compounded. Hence those weredecisions rendered perincuriam. We hold that an "offence which law declares to be non- compoundable even with the permission of the court cannot be compunded at all the offence under section 326indian Penal Code is, admittedly non compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel to permit the same to be compounded. " ( 4 ) FURTHER in the decision Madhu Limaye vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 while dealing with the principles in relation to exercise of inherent power of the High Court which have been followed ordinarily and generally barring a few exceptions, it was held (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redres of the grievance of the aggrieved party (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; (3) That it should not be exercisd as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, in present case some of the offences for which chargesheet has been filed non-compoundable and in case quashment of FIR and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom is allowed on the ground of compromise it would not only run in the teeth of statutory prohibition contained in sub-section (9) of of section 320 criminal procedure code but will also be in violation of the ratio as at No. 3 in the Madhu Limaye s case (supra) Guroharah Singh. Kapil Dev Gupta and Maranath Mukherjee s Case (Supra) are of no assistance to the petitioner in Naresh Kumar Singh s case (supra ) the FIR which came to be quashed, was for an offence Under section 408indian Penal Code which is compoundable. Petition thus deserves to be dismissed being without merit. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. --- *** --- .