Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.34 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 320 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 March, 2014
The
touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice.
There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the
High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or
specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a
case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in
cases where heinous offences have been proved against
perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as
cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh &Ors. vs.
State of Punjab &Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 466, 29], and Laxmi
Narayan [(2019) 5 SCC 688, 15].
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
The said provision has to be
strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(4)
R.C.R.(Criminal) 543 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)
549 : (2012)10 SCC 303). 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
9
9 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2024 07:02:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:091858
CRM-M-26552-2024
parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has
no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable.
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 tranquillity
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.