Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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