Abasaheb Yadav Honmane And… vs. The State of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2008

Advertisements

Abasaheb Yadav Honmane And… vs. The State of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2008

Facts of the Case

The case talks about Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at a great length and examines its role and application in the procedure of a Criminal case. It involves the examination of the essence of punishment for an offence; which is a fundamental aspect of any Penal Code. It is acknowledged that every offender found guilty may have to be punished. However, to prevent the abuse of the legal process and ensure justice, the court has the authority to exercise its inherent powers; the same has been stated out in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the Criminal Appeal no. 576 of 2004, the accused was convicted of an offence under Section 495 of the IPC, in which the court while admitting the appeal, released the applicant on bail. Further, now the accused filed this application praying to compound the offence under Section 495 of the IPC and quash the order of conviction dated 20 April, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. With the convictions, the accused was subjected to a rigorous imprisonment of five years along with a fine of 25000 rupees. The application of the applicant came up before a single Judge bench who refused to accept the principles stated in the order of the Division Bench. He directed for the application to be placed before a larger bench of two or three judges. The court discussed the power of reasonable expeditious trial and the High Court’s authority to grant bail or declare an approver’s detention illegal while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of whether the High court under its inherent powers, can allow compounding of offences other than those punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The court, ultimately, held that only those offences can be compounded which are mentioned in Section 320 of the Code. The court further gave a detailed judgement, emphasizing on the use of powers under Section 482 of the code.

Issues Raised

• Can the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi  and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. be  considered an authority to hold that offences under Section 498A of the IPC can be compounded with the court’s permission.
• Is the power to allow compounding of offences other than Section 498A of IPC vested in the High Court under the inherent powers provided in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 
• Can such a power be exercised by the High Court on trial stage or the appellate stage.
• Is the High Court conferred with powers to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of it’s inherent powers provided in Section 498 Cr.P.C. 

Contentions by the Appellant 

• The appellant filed an application praying to quash the order of conviction against him under section 495 of IPC and compounding of the offence.

Contentions by the Respondent

• The High court under its power does not hold the authority to allow compounding of offence other than section 498A of IPC under it’s inherent powers provided in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 

Judgment Pronounced 

In the case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. The State of Maharashtra, the court thoroughly examined the provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that preserves the High Court’s inherent powers. The court also talked about the connection between Section 320 and 482 with regards to quashing and compounding of offences. The court also examined the facts of B.S. Joshi’s case and clarified that the parties involved in the present case had not sought compounding of an offence under Section 320 of the Code. Instead, the Appellant prayed for the quashing of the FIR based on the terms and conditions recorded in a petition for mutual divorce. The High Court dismissed the petition of quashing the FIR, citing that the offence was not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and hence cannot be quashed under Section 482.

The court, however, also highlighted that the powers under Section 482 are inherent and not limited or affected by the provisions of Section 320. The court emphasized that the inherent powers include the authority to quash FIRs, Investigations, or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Subordinate Courts. These inherent powers are of wide magnitude and ramification and can be exercised to secure the ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of court, and make necessary orders in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The court clarified that the offences not specifically enumerated in Section 320 of the Code cannot be compounded by the court, nor can they be quashed by the High Court under its inherent powers. However, the High Court’s power under Section 482 is not limited to compounding of offences, but extends to both compoundable as well as non-compoundable offences. The court emphasized that the exercise of inherent powers should be done with caution, adhering to the precepts outlined in the Judgment. 

The court, further, mentioned that the object and purpose of passing any order under the inherent powers should be confined to one of the three categories specifoed in Section 482 of the Code. The court also clarified that the power to compound offences can be exercised at both the trial stage and the appellate stage, subject to the conditions established by the legislature under Section 320 of the Code. The court affirmed the wide-ranging scope of the court’s inherent powers, emphasizing their significance in ensuring justice and preventing abuse of the court’s process.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the case addressed various significant aspects of criminal jurisprudence and the scope of inherent powers of the court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The judgment clarified the distinction between compounding and quashing and the wide ranging powers of the court to exercise its inherent powers in securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the court’s process. The court held that the powers to quash criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with caution, ensuring it aligns with the objectives specified in Section 482 of the Code. Furthermore, the Court discussed interpretation of Section 320 affirming that only those offences explicitly listed in the provision are compoundable. The court also directed all criminal appeals, writ petitions and applications to be placed before an appropriate Bench for their disposal. The judgement set forth essential principles that contribute to the fair and acceptable procedure of criminal justice in India.

The role of public opinion and law enforcement and the need for a clear system of criminal justice administration are highlighted. The Indian Penal Code serves as the substantive law, while the Code of Criminal Procedure governs the procedural aspect, ensuring a systematic process from the commission of an offence to the conclusion of its judgement. It is essential to construe any ambiguity in the penal and procedural statutes In favour of preserving individual liberties. The court clarifies that the power under section 482 of the Code are inherent and not limited by the provisions of section 320. Compounding and quashing, although limited to criminal proceedings, have Different meanings and consequences. The court has the authority to quash criminal proceedings, FIRs, or complaints even if the offence is not compoundable under Section 320.

The judgement underlines the dynamic nature of the law adapting to societal needs and progress. Section 482 does not confer new powers on the high court but to safeguards the inherent powers necessary to secure justice. The inherent powers and allowed to criminal courts must be exercised judiciously, focusing on achieving real and substantial justice. The case elucidates the delicate balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining social harmony. The court’s interpretation of section 482 of the code reinforces the significance of preserving inherent powers to ensure that justice prevails. The judgement sets a precedent for the proper exercise of such powers, providing clarity on compounding and quashing of criminal proceedings.  This landmark judgement contributes to the development of criminal jurisprudence in India and upholds the principles of fairness, liberty, and rule of law.

References 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1365975/

written by Jagriti  Dwivedi of Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, An intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Admin