Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court reiterated that heinous offences and crimes against society cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.
“By allowing legal heirs to settle such cases unilaterally, the justice system would fail in its duty to hold perpetrators accountable, since the crime does not affect only the family but has wider ramifications for society at large.”
Before exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime besides observing and holding that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though a victim or victim’s family and the offender had settled.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on unlawful consideration.
“Just as an illegal contract cannot be enforced, similarly a compromise or settlement which is not in the interest of the Society cannot be used to nullify the order passed by the competent authority in compliance of the direction passed by the Court.”
‘Money, it seems, is to be exchanged for getting a quietus to the present criminal proceedings for offence of rape—a proposition that is not only immoral but also strikes at the very core of our criminal justice system.’
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on malicious prosecution.
“Though justice has got to be administered in accordance with the law enacted by the Legislature. The concept of justice is elastic and is imperceptible. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Courts to do substantial justice.”
“No party shall oppose each other’s marks or object to the same, in any manner, so long as the same are in compliance with the terms of this settlement.”
Allahabad High Court said that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petition wherein the Court was faced with the issue
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In the case relating to the compundable offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 and
Delhi High Court: Stating that, cases under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 should not be quashed and should not be taken
Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna, J., quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.87 of 2022 of Byadarahalli Police Station pending
Delhi High Court: Expressing that, attempts to circumvent or undermine judicial decisions need to be viewed seriously in order to ensure that
Gauhati High Court: Arun Dev Choudhury, J., held that sexual offences against minor cannot be compromised by parents. An FIR was lodged
Meghalaya High Court: H.S. Thangkhiew, J. while hearing a revision application allowed the same and directed the lower court to deal with
Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. allowed the compromise to bury the difference between parties and gives them their lives as
“If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.”
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless