Yogendra Yadav & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 21 July, 2014
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav
(Supra) observed in para 4 to 7 as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 March, 2014
Learned
advocate for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of
Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 as well as the decision
Page 2 of 6
R/SCR.A/1217/2015 JUDGMENT
rendered in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I., reported in AIR 2009
(SC) 428 and submitted that in view of the decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the impugned FIR be
quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.
Nikhil Merchant vs C.B.I. & Anr on 20 August, 2008
Learned
advocate for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of
Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 as well as the decision
Page 2 of 6
R/SCR.A/1217/2015 JUDGMENT
rendered in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I., reported in AIR 2009
(SC) 428 and submitted that in view of the decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the impugned FIR be
quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court
can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the
Indian Penal Code which are noncompoundable. Needless to say
that offences which are noncompoundable cannot be compounded
by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences
from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly
followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[1]). However, in a given
case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise
of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the
fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the
victim has no objection, even though the offences are
Page 4 of 6
R/SCR.A/1217/2015 JUDGMENT
noncompoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its
discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and
circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral
turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced
by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect
on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two
individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may
send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is
convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and,
therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it
feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise
would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it
should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution
becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution
would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the
compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.