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


Manoj Giri VS State of Chhatisgarh - 08 May 13

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 396 and 376 (2)(g)-Offences of gang rape, dacoity and murder-Prosecution of appellant with co accused persons for committing rape on prosecuterix a married woman, for causing death of her father in law and for committing offence of dacoity–Trial Court while convicting appellant under Sections 395, 396, 397, 398 and 376 (2)(g) ,acquitted co accused persons-Appeal- High Court while maintaining conviction of appellant under Sections 396 and 376 (2)(g) set aside his conviction under Section 395 -Appeal-Held in an offence of dacoity where there may be five or more persons and the factum of five or more persons is either not disputed or is clearly established, but the Court may not be able to record a finding as to identity of all the persons said to have committed dacoity and may not be able to convict them and order their acquittal observing that their identity is not established- In such case, conviction of less than five persons , or even one can stand- ...

India - Crimes


Manoj Giri VS State of Chhatisgarh - 08 May 13

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 396 and 376 (2)(g)-Offences of gang rape, dacoity and murder-Prosecution of appellant with co accused persons for committing rape on prosecuterix a married woman, for causing death of her father in law and for committing offence of dacoity-Trial Court while convicting appellant under Sections 395, 396, 397, 398 and 376 (2)(g) ,acquitted co accused persons-Appeal- High Court while maintaining conviction of appellant under Sections 396 and 376 (2)(g) set aside his conviction under Section 395 -Appeal-Held in an offence of dacoity where there may be five or more persons and the factum of five or more persons is either not disputed or is clearly established, but the Court may not be able to record a finding as to identity of all the persons said to have committed dacoity and may not be able to convict them and order their acquittal observing that their identity is not established- In such case, conviction of less than five persons , or even one can stand- ...

India - Supreme Court


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


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


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