Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Section 320 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 March, 2014
[13]. It appears to us those criminal proceedings involving non-
heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a
private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has
already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of
delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always
subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases
where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought
to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the
circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the
compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature
and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused,
before and after the incidence. 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].
Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979
In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise,
placement of parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise
deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance.
Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 November, 2018
In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 01-10-2022 22:54:41 :::
CRM-M No. 32379 of 2022 --6--
Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Shiji @ Pappu & Ors vs Radhika & Anr on 14 November, 2011
In Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[13]. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not
compoundable under Section 320 Indian Penal Code is by itself no
reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under
Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code That power can in our opinion
be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a
conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is
destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction
between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial
Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the
High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code on the other. While a Court trying an accused or
hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to
permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at
between the parties in cases where the offences are not
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 01-10-2022 22:54:41 :::
CRM-M No. 32379 of 2022 --3--