Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.55 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003
59. B.S.Joshi6, Nikhil Merchant7, Manoj Sharma8
and Shiji9 do illustrate the principle that the High
Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent power under
Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not
limit or affect the powers of the High Court under
Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal
proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj
Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the
non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not
think so. There does exist the distinction between
6
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675
7
Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677
8
Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1
9
Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4799
CRL.P No. 102652 of 2024
HC-KAR
compounding of an offence under Section 320 and
quashing of a criminal case by the 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 indictment."
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
The Court in Gian Singh case was categorical that in
respect of serious offences or other offences of mental
depravity or offence of merely dacoity under special