Gian Singh v State of Punjab

• A reference to a three-judge Bench raised whether earlier two-judge decisions allowing the High Court to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the offender and the victim were correct.

1. Whether the High Court, under S.482 CrPC, can quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences where the parties have settled, and how this power relates to compounding under S.320 CrPC.

• The power to compound under S.320 and the inherent power to quash under S.482 are materially different and not interchangeable. The High Court may quash on settlement to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. It must have regard to the nature and gravity of the crime: heinous and serious offences such as murder, rape and dacoity, and offences by public servants in that capacity, cannot be quashed on settlement, while offences with an overwhelmingly civil flavour arising from commercial, financial, partnership, matrimonial or family disputes may be.

Compounding is circumscribed by S.320 CrPC, while the inherent power under S.482 has no statutory limit but must be exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. Where the dispute is predominantly civil and the possibility of conviction is remote, continuing the prosecution would be oppressive; where the offence is heinous or affects society, a private settlement cannot justify quashing.