9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the power exercisable by the High Court u/s 482 CrPC is controlled by Section 320 CrPC or can be invoked in an appropriate case even if the offences are not compoundable in nature? 2. Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power u/s 482 CrPC even after the accused was found guilty and convicted by the trial court though the matter is sub-judice before the appellate court? Summary: Issue 1: The High Court examined whether its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings based on a compromise is controlled by Section 320 CrPC. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. clarified that compounding of offences and quashing of criminal proceedings are distinct powers. The High Court can quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is settled between the offender and the victim, provided the offences are not heinous or serious in nature. The Court emphasized that the exercise of inherent power depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and should be invoked sparingly. Issue 2: The Court addressed whether it can quash criminal proceedings u/s 482 CrPC after the accused has been convicted by the trial court and the appeal is pending. The Court referred to Dr. Arvind Barsaul v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., where the Supreme Court quashed proceedings in a matrimonial dispute post-conviction, emphasizing the need for justice and harmony. The High Court concluded that its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC is wide enough to quash proceedings at any stage, provided there is no express bar and the facts justify such action. Findings: The Court found the compromise between the parties genuine and bona fide. It noted that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 (step-mother) are living together and the compromise would promote family harmony. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and dismissed the criminal complaint based on the compromise. The Court imposed conditions to ensure the respondent No. 2's rights and well-being are protected, including maintaining her ownership of the land and prohibiting any attempts by the petitioners to transfer or encumber it. Conclusion: The High Court exercised its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings based on the compromise, ensuring justice and family harmony. The Court provided safeguards to protect the respondent No. 2's interests and allowed her to seek recall of the order if the compromise terms are breached.
|
