Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court said that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement, and this was a suitable case for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. As a result, the parties were unnecessarily compelled to approach this Court.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 235(1) and (2) — Reopening of judgment of conviction: As per S. 235, a judgment of conviction, held
“Looking to the nature and gravity of the offences and owing to the close relationship between the accused and the complainant, the Uttaranchal High Court exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, quashed the FIR.”
The petitioners have told the Court that though they are not directly affected by Rajasthan High Court’s order, they had approached the Court as the State, which is the Guardian of the interests of the persons living in the State, has chosen not to appeal and if the accused teacher will go unpunished in this case, not only him but other teachers may also commit similar offences with girls in future.
Uttaranchal High Court: Manoj K. Tiwari, J. allowed a writ petition to quash criminal proceedings after parties compromise over a non-compoundable offence.
Supreme Court: The bench comprising of DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, JJ set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had