Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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