Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.67 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2023 at 00:09:01
settlement between the parties has been examined and delineated by the
Supreme Court in a number of judgments. Emphasizing that the exercise of
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, held that albeit the inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but must be exercised
in accordance with guidelines engrafted in such power viz.: to secure the
ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of any Court. The Supreme
Court cautioned that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly quashed,
however, criminal cases having overwhelming and predominantly civil
flavor stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly,
offences arising from commercial, civil disputes or those pertaining to
matrimonial relationships etc. where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr on 15 March, 2013
The
Supreme Court reaffirmed the aforestated position in Jitendra Raghuvanshi
and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58 and
highlighted that in case of matrimonial disputes, which are on the increase,
Courts should not hesitate in quashing the criminal proceedings if the
settlements are genuine as that would be a course of action in the interest of
the parties.
Ganesh vs Sudhirkumar Shrivastava on 22 April, 2019
12. It is further made clear that in view of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Ganesh v. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava and Others, (2020) 20 SCC
787, the terms of settlement arrived at between Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 will not impact the rights of the minor son, who will be
entitled to enforce the rights available to him in law, if and when required.
Section 12 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
1