9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed based on a settlement between the parties. 2. Whether the offences under Sections 354 and 394 IPC are compoundable. 3. Whether the High Court can exercise its power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash non-compoundable offences. Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Based on Settlement The appeal arises from an order by the High Court of Kerala, which dismissed a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash criminal proceedings in FIR No. 6/2010. The High Court held that the offences charged were not 'personal in nature' to justify quashing based on a compromise between the complainant and the appellants. The Supreme Court considered whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed given the settlement between the parties. Issue 2: Compoundability of Offences under Sections 354 and 394 IPC Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lists compoundable offences. An offence u/s 354 IPC is compoundable at the instance of the woman against whom the offence is committed. However, an offence u/s 394 IPC is not compoundable, with or without the court's permission. The Supreme Court noted that while the offence u/s 354 IPC could be compounded, the offence u/s 394 IPC could not be compounded under Section 320. Issue 3: High Court's Power u/s 482 to Quash Non-Compoundable Offences The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could exercise its power u/s 482 to quash the prosecution for non-compoundable offences in light of a compromise. The Court cited several precedents, including *Ram Lal v. State of J&K*, *Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh*, and *B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana*, which established that the High Court could quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, even for non-compoundable offences. The Court emphasized that the inherent powers u/s 482 should be exercised with care and caution, only when continuance of the prosecution would be futile. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the incident stemmed from a civil dispute over access to adjacent plots, which had been resolved. The complainant and key witnesses were no longer supporting the prosecution. Therefore, continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process and a waste of judicial resources. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the prosecution in CC 183/2010 was quashed.
|
