TIBREWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Mohan Singh was prosecuted under Section 326 IPC and ultimately convicted by the Trial Magistrate and sentenced to one year RI and fine Rs. 1000/- vide judgment dated 29-3-1985.
(2.) AGAINST his conviction and sentences, he preferred an appeal which was Pending for disposal in the Court of Additional District & Sessions, Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (Camp Sambhar Lake ). Before the Appellate Court, an application was moved which was signed by the accused petitioner Mohan Singh and the complainant Gulab Singh, with a prayer to grant permission to compound the offence of 326 IPC under which the petitioner Mohan Singh was convicted by the Trial Magistrate. The application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on February 8, 1991 on the ground that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable as such, no permission to compound the said offence can be granted. Now this petition has been filed jointly by the accused and the complainant under Section 482 Cr. P. C. before this Court, being aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge refusing the permission to compound the offence under Section 326 IPC. I have heard Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sharm-, the learned Public Prosecutor. Mr. Mishra urges that though the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable but this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can allow composition of the offence ot secure the ends of justice in the special circumstances of a particular case. The learned counsel submits that there are special circumstances in the case which were narrated in the application moved before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, a certified copy of the same has also been filed along with this petition. The learned counsel has also placed reliance in Hari Narain & others Vs. State of Rajasthan (1), paras No. 5 to 6 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below as the learned counsel has placed reliance on the same: - "5. It is true that the offence under Sec. 326 IPC is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court, but nothing in the Code prevents this Court under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. to allow composition to secure the ends of justice in the special circumstances of a particular case. The special circumstances in the case are that the appellants and the injured are real cousins, there was some dispute between them relating to the aforesaid agricultural land which had been gifted by the Khatedar Badri Narain (PW/9 ). A counter FIR had also been lodged by Sita Ram against the complainant party. Injuries had also been sustained by Madan Lal and Sita Ram appellants. The land dispute has been settled between the parties and, now they are in good relations. In view of all these facts, it appears just and proper to allow composition of the offence between the complainants and the appellants. 6. It is therefore, directed that the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur will accord permission to the injured complainants and the appellants compound the offences after giving an opportunity to the parties and after being satisfied that the compromise has been agreed upon. The parties are directed to present themselves before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 27. 05. 1989, for the above purpose. The file of the trial Court and the application for compounding the offence may be transmitted to the trial Court immediately. " Contrary to this, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that Section 32 Cr. P. C. deals with compounding of offences. The learned counsel submits that only those offences punishable under the section of IPC specified in the first columns of the table (giving in that section) may be compounded with the permission of the Court or without permission as provided in that section. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the offence under Section 326 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and cannot be compounded even with the permission of the Court. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a thing which is not permissible under the law cannot be allowed to be permitted in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above rival contentions. Section 320 IPC is the only provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with compounding of offences. From the perusal of the said provision it is clear that only those offences enumerated in the two tables given in the said section can he compounded either with permission of the Court or without permission as per the said provision. It is further noteworthy that the effect of the composition of offences is acquittal of the accused for the offence which has been compounded as provided under sub-section (8) of Section 320 Cr. P. C. Then Sub-section (9) of the said section reads as follows :- "no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section. "
(3.) THE aforesaid sub-section (9) makes it clear that the court has power only to allow composition of offence which are provided in Section 320 Cr. P. C. and except those offences, no other offence can be compounded. This Sub-section creates a complete bar on the powers of the Courts also. Then a further question of law arises for consideration as to whether a thing can be permitted to be done which has been expressly prohibited under the law. The power to be exercised under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is in its nature extraordinary. It is also a settled law that no Court can claim inherent jurisdiction to exercise powers which are expressly taken away by legislation. When there are express provisions of law, there is no inherent power in the High Court to override them. No Court can invoke new categories of inherent jurisdiction. I am of the confirmed view that in view of sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P. C. the offences other than enumerated in the two tables given in that section, cannot be compounded. When there is an express legislative prohibition then the same cannot be done in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ;