Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
(iv) 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;
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 18 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
M.P.State Tourism Dev.Corpn. vs Laxmi Narayan &Ors.; on 27 April, 2015
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan
and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Apex Court had
the occasion to consider the issue as to whether an FIR lodged
for the 2 offences punishable under sections 307 and 34 IPC
could be quashed on the basis of the settlement between the
parties. While considering the said issue, the Apex Court
observed in para-13 thus:
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1