Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.19 seconds)Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 187 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
6. The law laid down in respect of exercise of
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and
resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected
by the parties in (2012) 10 SCC 303, titled Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466, titled Narinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 9 SCC 641, titled as
Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, has been noticed
again by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688, titled
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, with
following observations:-
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 March, 2014
15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc.
would fall in the category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the individual alone,
and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence
under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which
have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed
in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on
the ground that the parties have resolved their entire
dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court
would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section
307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the
body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an
exercise by the High Court would be permissible only
after the evidence is collected after investigation and the
charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during
the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the
matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the
ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the
decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh
(supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as
a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of
::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS
5
non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature
and do not have a serious impact on society, on the
ground that there is a settlement/ compromise between
the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to
consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of
the accused, namely, whether the accused was
absconding and why he was absconding, how he had
.
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 4 October, 2017
6. The law laid down in respect of exercise of
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and
resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected
by the parties in (2012) 10 SCC 303, titled Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466, titled Narinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 9 SCC 641, titled as
Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, has been noticed
again by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688, titled
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, with
following observations:-