Back
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Lala @ Vikram – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
ORDER
1. The applicant and respondent No.2 have filed an application for compromise. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of this Court. A verification report has been received in which it is stated that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and without there being any coercion, threat etc.
2. Counsel for State submits that the offence u/Ss.323,506,342 of IPC are compoundable offences, however, the offences u/Ss.365, 307 of IPC are non compoundable offences and the offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are also non compoundable.
3. In view of the above, it would be apposite to survey the law in respect of compounding in non-compoundable case. The apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding can be permitted in a non-compoundable offence. Relevant part of the order of the order reads as under :-
"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thi
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on the compromise between the parties, following the guidelines to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
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
