Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 320 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sushil Suri vs C.B.I & Anr on 6 May, 2011
8. The extraordinary power under section 482 Cr.P.C. should be
exercised sparingly and with great care and caution and can be used to
prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice and the
exercise of inherent powers entirely depends on facts and circumstances of
each case. The Supreme Court in Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another, (2011) 5 SCC 708, considered the scope and
ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and observed as under:-
Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 March, 2014
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving
non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly 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 extra-ordinary 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. 3 (2014) 6 SCC
466 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
1