Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GIAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

Decided
23 November 2010
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Matter referred to larger bench

Citations

Official
[2010] 13 S.C.R. 1034 · 2010 INSC 803
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

p. 1035, margin C

The petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 and Section 1208, 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 alo ng with the main appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petitioner under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FiR on the ground of compounding the offence. That petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the High Court by its impugned order. Hence, this petition has been filed in this Court.

p. 1035, margin C

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on three decisions of this Court, all by two Judge Benches. They are B.S. Joshi vs. Stae of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of lnw~stigation and Another (2008) 9 sec 677; and Manoj Sharma vs. State and others (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 fast two decisions.

p. 1035, margin F

Section 320, Cr.P.C. mentions certain offences as · compoundable, certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the Court, and the other offences as noncompoundable vide Section 320 (7).

pp. 1035–1036, margin H

Section 420, IPC, one of the counts on which the petitioner has been convicted, no doubt, is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court in view of Section 320, Cr.P.C. but Section 120B IPC, the other count on which the petitioner has been convicted, is a non-compoundable offence. Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) is a separate nffence and since it is a noncompoundable offence, we cannot permit it to be compounded.

p. 1036, margin A

The Court cannot amend the statute and must maintain judicial restraint in this connection. The Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or executive. It is the legislature alone which can amend Section 320 Cr. P.C.

p. 1036, margin C

We are of the opinion that the above three decisions require to be re-considered as, in our opinion, something which cannot be done directly cannot be done directly cannot be done

p. 1036, margin D

indirectly. In our, prima facie, opinion, non compoundable offences cannot be permitted to be compounded by the Court, whether directly or indirectly. Hence, the above three decisions do not appear to us to be correctly decided.

p. 1036, margin D

It is true that in the last two decisions, one of us, Hon'ble

p. 1036, margin E

Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, was a member but a Judge should always be open to correct his mistakes. We feel that these decisions require re-consideration and hence we direct that this matter be placed before a larger Bench to reconsider the correctness of the aforesaid three decisions.

p. 1036, margin E

Let the papers of this case be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench. R.P. Matter referred to larger Bench.

p. 1036, margin G