Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Tempa @ Tempa Sheikh @ Basir Sheikh, s/o. Jhatu Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal petition filed to quash fir (Para 2) |
| 2. parties reached an amicable compromise (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. high court's inherent jurisdiction in criminal matters (Para 6) |
| 4. nature of offences not serious; possible injustice to accused (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court quashes criminal proceedings based on compromise (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on but charge-sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.
5. Learned P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection to the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition.
11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the bod
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties when the offences are not heinous and predominantly civil in nature, preventing abuse of process and ensuring justice.
High Court may quash non-heinous private dispute proceedings under inherent powers where parties fully compromise, conviction becomes remote, and continuation abuses process.
The High Court may quash FIRs for non-serious offences if the parties have fully settled their dispute, serving the interests of justice and preventing abuse of process.
High Court quashed non-heinous criminal proceedings under inherent powers due to parties' full compromise in private family dispute, remote conviction chance, and to prevent abuse of process.
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings when parties reach a compromise, particularly in non-heinous offences, as continuation of proceedings may cause undue hardship.
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings in private disputes, particularly matrimonial ones, if a full settlement is reached and continuation would cause injustice.
The court can quash criminal proceedings when a private dispute is resolved through compromise, indicating a remote chance of conviction and preventing abuse of the legal process.
Compromise in private disputes justifies quashing of FIR and proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, particularly when conviction chances are remote.
High Court quashed non-heinous private dispute criminal proceedings upon voluntary compromise, as continuation would abuse process, render conviction remote, and cause prejudice, following guidelines....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
