Co-Sharer Seeking Title By Adverse Possession Must Prove Clear Ouster And Date When Possession Became Hostile: Punjab & Haryana High Court Private Un-Aided Schools Don't Need Prior Permission From DoE To Hike Fees At Start Of Academic Session: Delhi High Court Motherhood Not A Disability; Female Athletes Entitled To Maternity Accommodation: Delhi High Court Permits Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Trials Section 362 CrPC Prohibits Review Of Judgment On Merits Once Signed; Recall Only For Procedural Errors: Allahabad High Court Court Is Guardian Of Deities: Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection In Shebaitship Dispute To Protect Property & Seva-Puja Order Rejecting Impleadment Of Third Party Based On Jurisdictional Plea Is Appealable Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Rape Allegation Made For First Time During Trial Without Mention In FIR Is A 'Material Improvement': Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused Suspension Of Govt Employee Requires Specific Evidence Of Individual Dereliction, Not Just Occurrence Of A Tragic Event: Karnataka High Court Municipal Authorities Obligated To Act Fairly While Deciding Rival Claims For Tenancy & Mutation: Calcutta High Court 21% Interest On Friendly Loan Is Unconscionable; Courts Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously Under Section 34 CPC: Delhi High Court Ante-Mortem Injuries & Lack Of Typical Ligature Mark Suggest Homicidal Hanging; Inmates Must Explain Death Inside House: Supreme Court Husband Must Explain Wife's Death Within Privacy Of Home; Mere Denial Inconsistent With Innocence: Supreme Court High Court Can Order Criminal Investigation To Protect Estate Even While Exercising Testamentary Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Revenue Must Prove Product's Suitability As Fuel For 'Motor Spirit' Classification; Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Against Reliance Industries Imported 'n-Hexane' Is A Separate Chemically Defined Compound Classifiable Under Chapter 29, Not 'Motor Spirit' Under Chapter 27: Supreme Court Clarificatory Amendments To Industrial Policies Apply Retrospectively; Existing Units Cannot Claim Incentives Meant For New Enterprises: Supreme Court Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Invoked To Claim Double Benefit Not Intended By Industrial Policy: Supreme Court Expert Medical Panels Must Include Peer Specialists To Evaluate Technical Nuances; Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Anaesthetist Exoneration In Civil Proceedings On Merits Precludes Criminal Prosecution On Same Facts: Supreme Court Quashes Negligence Case Against Doctor Section 482 Quashing Not A Bar To Future Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC; No 'Double Jeopardy' Involved: Supreme Court Criminal Law Not An Instrument To Settle Familial Scores Against Husband’s Relatives Using Omnibus Allegations: Supreme Court Medical History In MRI Report Recorded For Diagnosis Cannot Override Consistent Testimony & FIR In Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court MV Act Claims Must Be Decided On Preponderance Of Probability, Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court

Complainant's Consent Must in Settlements for Non-Compoundable Offences: Supreme Court Reinstates Criminal Proceedings Quashed by High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India today restored the criminal proceedings in a case involving serious charges like abduction and assault, which were earlier quashed by the High Court based on a settlement agreement. The apex court emphasized the necessity of the complainant’s consent in the settlement of non-compoundable offences.

The case revolved around the quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings under various sections of the IPC, including 364, 147, 148, 149, 323, and the applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court scrutinized the exercise of the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC in quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement, particularly emphasizing the role of the original complainant in such settlements.

The FIR, filed in 1999, accused certain individuals of assault and abduction. Despite a charge-sheet being filed, the accused persons sought quashing of the proceedings through a settlement agreement in 2022 with a party who was not the original complainant. The High Court accepted this settlement, leading to the current appeal in the Supreme Court.

Involvement of the Original Complainant: The Court noted that the original complainant, also an injured victim, was not a party to the settlement and had not consented to it. This lack of consent was pivotal in considering the quashing of proceedings involving serious, non-compoundable offences.

Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC: The Court highlighted the limitations of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. It emphasized that these powers should be judiciously exercised to secure justice and prevent the abuse of legal process, especially in cases with serious societal implications.

Restoration of Proceedings: The apex court directed the restoration of the criminal case to the trial court, instructing an expedited trial given the long duration since the FIR's filing.

Reversing the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court upheld the importance of the original complainant’s stance in cases involving serious crimes. It was concluded that settlement agreements do not necessarily lead to quashing of proceedings, especially in non-compoundable offences.

Date of Decision: March 1, 2024

Anil Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Latest Legal News