Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

"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