Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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