GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 and Section 120B, IPC by the learned Magistrate. He filed an appeal challenging his conviction before the learned Sessions Judge. While his appeal was pending, he filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge for compounding the offence, which, according to the learned Counsel, was directed to be taken up along with the main appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR on the ground of compounding the offence. That petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed by the High Court by its impugned order. Hence, this petition has been filed in this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on three decisions of this Court, all by two Judge Benches.They are B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., 2008 9 SCC 677; and Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors., 2008 16 SCC 1. In these decisions, this Court has indirectly permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. One of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, was a member to the last two decisions.