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
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
Mohammad Faizan Amir Khan VS State of Maharashtra - 05 Jul 16
In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.
India - Crimes
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
Harshit Kothari S/o Satish Kothari VS State of Rajasthan - 25 Jan 22
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 406 and 498-A – Criminal Procedure Code,1860 - Section 482 - Attested compromise for Offence - Conviction - Heinous and serious Offences - Mental Depravity or Offences - Offence of Murder - Respondent No. 2 Police Station has registered an FIR against the petitioner - After investigation police filed charge sheet against petitioner for offence under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. in trial court wherein trial is pending against petitioner for aforesaid offences - During pendency of trial a joint application was preferred on behalf of petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 while stating that both parties have entered into compromise and therefore proceedings pending against petitioner may be terminated - Learned trial court vide order allowed parties to compound offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C - However rejected application so far as it relates to compounding offence - Held, In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F....
India - Rajasthan
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
VIRENDRA VS STATE OF U. P. - 30 Apr 14
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000—Section 12—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 376 and 302—Juvenile Justice Act, 1986—Section 18(1)—Bail—Juvenile—Rejection of—In view of Act, 2000 exposure of juvenile to moral, physical and psychological danger made a ground to refuse bail—Bail can also be refused on ground that release would defeat ends of justice—Rape cannot be treated to be an act—Which can be dubbed as a child’s mistake committed during youthhood/adolescence—It is an act motivated with passion to ravish somebody’s modesty—Ends of justice not defined under the Act—But anything that militates against justice would result in defeating ends of justice—Consequently, offence like rape with child followed by murder, anti-national/sedition—Section 12 not interpreted in a manner so as to give advantage to only juvenile in conflict with law—Impugned order upheld. [Paras 13, 17, 22, 23 and 29]
India - Allahabad
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
ASHA VS STATE OF U. P. - 17 Nov 17
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 363, 366 and 376—Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Section 3/4—Proceeding—Quashing of—23 days before lodging of FIR applicant No. 1 and 2 has already solemnized marriage—When she was recovered and produce before magistrate—In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., also she has stated that she left her house with her own will and went to house of applicant No. 2 before leaving house she told her mother that she is going and her mother ousted her from house—They are having physical relation as husband and wife—Proceeding quashed. [Paras 10 to 13 and 14]Result: Application Allowed.
India - Allahabad
State of Rajasthan VS Kalu Ram - 09 Apr 14
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 363, 364, 376(2)(f), 302 and 201 The Facts that the dead body, weapon which had blood on it and clothes were found in the house of accused and also that the accused and deceased were seen together last have not been explained by the accused to disprove his guilt – Conviction is upheld – Appeal is not permitted. B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 363, 364, 376(2)(f), 302 and 201It has been held that the act of the accused comes under the category of the rarest of rare crimes which deserves death sentence – The accused is a tantrik and he committed rape and killed the victim cruel without any kind of provocation – Sentence of Death is correct and appropriate.
India - Rajasthan