Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Criminal Law Should Consider the Wishes of the Parties," Observes High Court in Groundbreaking Judgement on Quashing FIR Based on Compromise

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a remarkable judgement, the High Court has opened new avenues for dispute resolution within the criminal justice system. The court, under the bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, emphasized, "Criminal law should consider the wishes of the parties to a dispute, especially where the criminal act does not significantly affect society," while delivering the judgement dated 21st September 2023.

The case involved an FIR filed under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 452, and 506. The petitioners filed for the quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC based on a compromise reached between the disputing parties.

The court made several critical observations and delineated the type of criminal offenses that cannot be quashed on the grounds of a compromise. These include cases involving intentional loss of life or those having a larger societal impact.

Justice Sehrawat also advised courts to confirm the genuineness of the compromise between the parties. "Parties were directed to appear before the trial Court to confirm the genuineness of the compromise," the judgement read.

The judgement was divided in its decision. The petition was allowed for petitioners No.1 and 3, and dismissed for petitioners No.2 and 4. Consequently, the FIR and all ensuing proceedings were quashed for petitioners No.1 and 3 based on the verified compromise.

The judgement is expected to have far-reaching implications, especially in cases where the parties are willing to resolve their disputes amicably. The Hon'ble Justice's remarks on the role of criminal law in considering the wishes of the parties could set a precedent for future cases.

The court referred to the landmark case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 in making its decision. The petitioners were represented by Mr. Sumit Puri, Advocate, and the State was represented by Mr. Vinay Phogat, DAG, Haryana.

Date of Decision: 21.09.2023

Gurvinder @ Chinnu and others vs State of Haryana and others   

Latest Legal News