Jeevan Joy, S/o. Joy VS State Of Kerala - 27 Oct 20
An offence is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. by itself is no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
India - Kerala
Pardeep Motors Hire Purchase Corporation VS Jagdish Raj - 04 Feb 20
Criminal Procedure Code1973 - Section 561-A – FIR – Quash - Petition that petitioners had agreed to purchase vehicle from respondents for which was given by way of advance payment - Respondents issued receipt of same - It appears that some dispute arose between parties resultantly an application Section was filed for registering FIR - After considering application Sub Judge Judicial Magistrate Jammu vide his order directed SHO Police Station Now bad to register FIR law and investigate matter - In pursuance to this direction Section been registered in Police Station Now bad Jammu and investigation has been proceeded –Held, Parties have appeared in person and to ascertain contents compromise their statements have also been recorded - They submit that they have settled their dispute amicably out of their own free will and without any external pressure or coercion - Complainant submits that he has no objection if FIR lodged by him along with consequential proceedings in case titled Jadish ...
India - J&K
Deepa Sahu W/o Deepankar Sahu VS State of CG - 03 Feb 21
Point of law: Offence under Section 376 of IPC being a sexual offence would fall in category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated against society and not against an individual one and criminal proceedings for offence under Section 376 of IPC which have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC on the ground that parties have married and staying together as husband and wife - Penal statute has prescribed a maximum and minimum punishment for offence under Section 376 of IPC.
India - Chattisgarh
Kankipati Kalyan Babu Kalyan VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 24 Dec 21
Offence of rape cannot be compounded on the basis of compromise between parties.
India - Crimes
Inder Rajput VS State of Himachal Pradesh - 08 Sep 21
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482, 173 and 320 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 - Attempt to murder – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt – House preparation after preparation to hurt - Alleged that marriage of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 was solemnised per Hindu rites and customs and out of wedlock, no issue was born. It is further averred that father of respondent No. 2 has already expired prior to her marriage and marriage expenses of respondent No. 2 were borne by the widowed mother of respondent per respondent No. 2, after three days of marriage, petitioner No. 1 telephonically called her mother that respondent No. 2 is feeling pain in her stomach and asked her to take respondent No. 2 to Nal - Alleged that petitioner No. 1 refused to keep respondent No. 2 with him and left her at her mother's house - Alleged that petitioner No. 1 asked mother of respondent No. 2 to get her checked and then promised to take her ...
India - Himachal Pradesh
Inder Rajput VS State of Himachal Pradesh through Its Secretary (Home) - 08 Sep 21
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal code, 1860 - Section 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 - Quashing of FIR - Whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc - Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society – Held, though offence alleged to have been committed by accused is neither heinous nor serious, and further parties have compromised matter, as such, this court deems it appropriate to quash FIR as well as consequential proceedings, especially keeping in view fact that parties have compromised matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with criminal proceedings - Since matter stands compromised between parties and complainant is no more inter...
India - Himachal Pradesh
In the matter of : Pawan Gaur VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 26 Mar 21
Rape – Quash of FIR - Compromise between parties - High Courts ought not to use the inherent powers under S. 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing FIRs under Section 376 IPC even if the prosecutrix has entered into a compromise with the accused
India - Delhi
Rahul P. R. VS State of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor - 26 Aug 21
Point of Law : Rape - Amicable settlement - Quash of FIR - Inherit powers of High Court - Power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc - Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society - Hence not to be quashed merely on basis of compromise between victim and offender.
India - Kerala
Ram Kailash Tripathi VS State of U. P. - 11 Sep 19
whIle exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc
India - Allahabad
Darog Ali VS State of Assam - 13 Feb 19
Indian Penal Code –Section 376 –Criminal Procedure Code –Sections 320, 482 –Rape offence –The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the offence is non-compoundable but they have settled the matter as such they have approached this Court for quashing of the FIR and the proceeding in view of such settlement between the parties –Today, none appears for the respondent No. 2 although name of the counsel is shown in the cause list –Held, So far as the present case is concerned, the respondent No. 2/the informant filed the FIR with the allegation that in absence of her husband the accused person forcefully committed rape upon her while her husband was along with her injured son in the hospital –But the said informant now stated to have settled the matter and to this effect, she has also filed affidavit – The present case as per allegations in the FIR would demonstrates, not merely one involving private dispute but relates to an offence of rape and implicate serious offences...
India - Gauhati