“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
Delhi High Court: Stating that, Rape is an act against society, Rajnish Bhatnagar, J., held that simply entering into a compromise allegation
The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.
Supreme Court: In a case where the members of the Lok Adalat, Madhya Pradesh High Court had entered into the merits of
In a case where a compromise was reached between parties, 28 years after an incident left the victim crippled for life, the Court said that such a brutality cannot be ignored which is not against the individual but the crime is against the society which has to be dealt with sternly.
Delhi High Court: Emphasizing on the gravity of seriousness of Section 307 Penal Code, 1860, Subramonium Prasad, J., observed that, “…an offence
Litigants think that they can ‘hop on and hop off the case’ at any stage without any consequence using the slogan ‘pure justice’.
Chhattisgarh High Court: Rajendra Singh Samant J. allowed the appeal and directed to take up the proceeding for conciliation under Section 18
Punjab and Haryana Case: Harnaresh Singh Gill, J., dismissed the instant petition filed for issuance of directions to Police officials to hand