Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13900 (2.82 seconds)
Documents citing Shiji @ Pappu & Ors vs Radhika & Anr on 14 November, 2011

Vinod Maan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 September, 2024

In Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [13]. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Indian Penal Code is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under 3 38 of 42 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2024 00:43:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:134367 CRM-M-40776-2024 Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Chitkara - Full Document

Subhash Rai vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 July, 2024

13. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101], while quashing the FIR by observing that as the complainant has compromised with the accused, there is no possibility of recording a conviction, and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has clearly erred in quashing the FIR on the aforesaid ground. It appears that the High Court has misread or misapplied the said decision to the facts of the cases on hand. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it is not in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. Such observations are presumptive and many a time too early to opine. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Sri Veeramani vs State Of Karnataka By on 9 August, 2024

13. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:32011 CRL.P No. 1808 of 2024 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , while quashing the FIR by observing that as the complainant has compromised with the accused, there is no possibility of recording a conviction, and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has clearly erred in quashing the FIR on the aforesaid ground. It appears that the High Court has misread or misapplied the said decision to the facts of the cases on hand. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it is not in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. Such observations are presumptive and many a time too early to opine. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Manjunath M @ Manja @ Boosa Manja vs State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2026

13. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , while quashing the FIR by observing that as the complainant has compromised with the accused, there is no possibility of recording a conviction, and/or the further trial would be 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:12118 CRL.P No. 2215 of 2026 HC-KAR an exercise in futility is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has clearly erred in quashing the FIR on the aforesaid ground. It appears that the High Court has misread or misapplied the said decision to the facts of the cases on hand. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it is not in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. Such observations are presumptive and many a time too early to opine. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

H M Gangadharappa vs State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2026

13. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , while quashing the FIR by observing that as the complainant has compromised with the accused, there is no possibility of recording a conviction, and/or the further trial would be an exercise in futility is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has clearly erred in quashing the FIR on the aforesaid ground. It appears that the High Court has misread or misapplied the said decision to the facts of the cases on hand. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it is not in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. Such observations are presumptive and many a time too early to opine. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

P.Venugopal Reddy vs State

44. As rightly observed in Shiji alias Pappu and Ors. vs. Radhika and another, reported in AIR 2012 SC 499, the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. The plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution, wherein the chances of recording conviction, even they are allowed to be continued, would bleak.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - T Mathivanan - Full Document

Harish Trivedi vs State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Home ... on 30 September, 2020

Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848], Nikhil Merchant [Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858], Manoj Sharma [Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] and Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by a High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the indictment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vipin Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 15 October, 2020

Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848], Nikhil Merchant [Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858], Manoj Sharma [Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] and Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by a High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the indictment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 September, 2012

7. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted 7 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42932 of 2011 (2) dt.20-09-2012 7/7 that as in that case also there was an allegation under Section 494 which was not compoundable but the court has found that it was primarily a personal dispute having no public effect. He has further submitted that in non-compoundable cases where it is completely personal dispute, this Court can allow the petition in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. as in the present case, opposite party No. 2 who is the Accountant on receipt of money having shown his desire to end the proceeding against petitioners it will unnecessary prolongation of the case without any fruitful result as they are not interested to proceed with the case.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Chaudhary Hiteshbhai Karshanbhai & 3 vs State Of Gujarat & on 11 June, 2015

20. It   may   be   noted   that   there   is   no   bar   to   the  exercise   of   power   under   Section   482   of   the   Code   in  Page 24 of 26 R/CR.MA/9883/2015 JUDGMENT respect of the offence under Section 394 of the Indian  Penal Code, as stated by the Supreme Court in  Shiji   Alias   Pappu   and   others   Vs.   Radhika   and   another   (supra)  quoted   hereinabove.   The   other   offences   are  neither heinous nor serious in nature and the incident  appears to have occurred in the heat of the moment due  to   an   altercation   between   the   parties.   The  misunderstanding and misconception that has led to the  incident has now been cleared as is evident from the  affidavit filed by respondent No.2 (complainant). The  applicants   and   the   complainant   reside   in   the   same  village   and  in  the   interest   of   society  and   harmony,  if   the   power   under   Section   482   of   the   Code   is  exercised,   it   would   secure   the   ends   of   justice.   No  fruitful   purpose   would   be   served,   if   the   applicants  are   compelled   to   be   dragged   through   the   criminal  prosecution, especially when no hard feelings remain  between the parties.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next