Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Reconciliation of Social Conflicts Paramount: High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under SCST Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, has set a precedent by quashing criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act and various IPC sections. This decision, dated 14th November 2023, came in the case of Sohan Lal & others v. State of Punjab & another, emphasizing the importance of reconciling social conflicts through legal means.

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sought to quash a criminal complaint registered at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Fazilka, based on a mutual out-of-court compromise. The court noted the absence of any coercion or undue influence in reaching this settlement.

Justice Sehrawat remarked, “The ultimate aim, objective, and goal of a legal system is to reconcile the social conflicts,” underlining the judiciary’s role in resolving disputes that extend beyond two parties to impact society at large. This observation highlights the court’s progressive approach in handling cases involving social harmony and legal justice.

While recognizing the compromise between the disputing parties, the judgment also made a clear distinction between the nature of offences suitable for such settlements. It cited that grave offences involving governance, administration, or severe societal impact should not be compromised.

Referencing the precedent set by Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012), the judgment elaborated on the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings in line with the inherent jurisdiction provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The court acknowledged that while heinous crimes like murder, rape, and dacoity are unfit for quashing based on settlements, disputes with a predominantly civil nature can be resolved through compromise, especially if continuing the proceedings would result in injustice.

The legal fraternity has welcomed this judgment as a balanced approach towards resolving criminal disputes, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion in the interest of societal harmony and justice. Advocates Harpreet Singh Jakhal, Gurpal Singh Dhillon, and Kiranjeet Kaur represented the petitioners and respondents in this landmark case, respectively.

This ruling is expected to set a precedent for future cases, where the nature and gravity of the offence, along with the interests of justice, play a crucial role in deciding the course of legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 14th November, 2023

Sohan Lal & others VS State of Punjab & another   

Latest Legal News