Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.51 seconds)Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Kulwinder Pal Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 12 May, 2016
[5]. In view of report submitted by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rupnagar, this Court is of the firm opinion that in
view of compromise between the parties, there would be remote
and negligible chances of the witnesses coming forward to
depose in favour of the prosecution version. There would be
remote chances of conviction, therefore, in order to put an end
to the controversy for all times to come, exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C would be in the interest of
justice to facilitate both the parties to arrive at peaceful
resolution of the dispute and also to maintain public tranquility in
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2020 21:45:28 :::
CRM-M-32744-2020 5
the area. The offence is personal in nature and the same does
not involve any mental depravity and also does not involve any
offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. In such situation,
exercise of inherent jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C
would be in consonance with the requirement of law to meet
ends of justice and to prevent unnecessary continuation of
criminal proceedings, which would ultimately result in vacuum.
Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised in order to
prevent unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial to be faced by the
parties, when there are remote chances of conviction of the
accused. The compromise in question is found to be in fully
consonance with the direction issued by the Court in Kulwinder
Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR
(Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
another, 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543.
Kulwinder Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 8 August, 2007
The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended
that the present FIR was a result of matrimonial dispute between
the petitioners and respondent No.2. He has further contended
that now the parties have reached an amicable settlement and
respondent No.2 now does not want to pursue the present FIR.
Learned counsel relies upon Kulwinder Singh and others vs.
State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 to
contend that even in non-compoundable offences, if the parties
have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers
under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent
abuse of law and secure the ends of justice.
1