Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

"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