Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
B. V. NAGARATHNA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Arun Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.381/2016 and Crl. M.A. No.1618/2016, by which the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking quashing of order dated 28.09.2015 of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and issuing summons to the appellants herein as accused on the basis of the final report dated 22.09.2015 made under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C has been dismissed, the appellants are before this Court.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-State. On perusal of the Office Report, it is noted that the second respondent-complainant is served but has not responded to the same and there is no representation on her behalf.
4. It is not in dispute that the marriage between appellant No.1 and Respondent No.2 took place on 01.11.1996. Thereafter, an ex-parte decr
The court established that post-divorce criminal proceedings can be quashed if genuine settlements are present, while also respecting statutory limitations.
The court affirmed its authority to quash criminal proceedings under Article 142 when genuine settlements exist, prioritizing complete justice over procedural continuance.
The main legal point established is the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in post-conviction matters and the considerations for quashing criminal proceedings, emphasizing the volun....
Criminal proceedings for offence under Section 307 IPC and/or Arms Act etc., which have a serious impact society, cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, on the ground th....
The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings stemming from matrimonial disputes can be quashed when the parties have settled their differences and ongoing prosecution serves no legitimate purpose....
In matrimonial disputes, if parties reach a genuine settlement, continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process, justifying quashing under Article 142.
The court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, even for heinous offenses, in cases of settlement and compromise, but must exercise this power sparingly and with caut....
The court established that under Section 494 IPC, only the husband can be charged with bigamy, not the second wife or her family, leading to quashing of proceedings.
Offence - Settled Dispute - In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravi....
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes if the parties have settled amicably, emphasizing the importance of encouraging genuine settlements.
Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781 [Para 6]
-
Read summaryMohd. Miyan and Ors. vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Crl. A. No.1048/2018) dt.21.08.2018 [Para 6]
-
Read summaryIqbal Alias Bala and Ors. State of U.P. and Ors. (2023) 8 SCC 734 [Para 6]
-
Read summaryRamawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635 [Para 8]
-
Read summarySupreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr.
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.