MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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