Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (4.14 seconds)Section 320 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kulwinder Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 8 August, 2007
"53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings
on the ground of settlement between an offender and
victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence.
They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly
speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to
a court under Section 320 is materially different from the
quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2017 03:26:26 :::
-4-
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of
offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by
the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is
guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other
hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for
quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or
criminal complaint is guided by the material on record
as to whether the ends of justice would justify such
exercise of power although the ultimate consequence
may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
(12) The decision in Gian Singh's case (supra) also approves
the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in
Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2007(3)
RCR (Crl.) 1052.
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sube Singh & Another vs State Of Haryana & Another on 17 November, 2011
Considering the aforesaid dictum in Sube Singh's case (supra)
and the fact that there is no statutory embargo against invoking powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after conviction of accused by the trial Court and
during pendency of the appeal against such conviction and further that the
compromise will bring harmony in relations between the parties, the petition
is accepted and aforesaid F.I.R. No.102 qua the petitioner, is hereby
quashed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
10.09.2015 recorded by learned trial Court are set aside on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the parties. Resultantly, the appeal preferred
by the petitioner against the above-mentioned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence would be rendered infructuous and shall also be so
declared by the first appellate Court at Fazilka.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
"53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings
on the ground of settlement between an offender and
victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence.
They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly
speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to
a court under Section 320 is materially different from the
quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2017 03:26:26 :::
-4-
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of
offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by
the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is
guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other
hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for
quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or
criminal complaint is guided by the material on record
as to whether the ends of justice would justify such
exercise of power although the ultimate consequence
may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
(12) The decision in Gian Singh's case (supra) also approves
the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in
Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2007(3)
RCR (Crl.) 1052.
1