Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
The legal framework and specific court orders determine whether a non-compoundable case is removed from a criminal record. Many references imply that unless a petition for delation is explicitly allowed, the record remains intact.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["S. ANANDRAJ vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"]: Court allowed petition to call for records, implying records are maintained unless further order.- ["S. ANANDRAJ vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"]: Court ordered proceedings to be quashed, which may impact record status.- ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPRAMISE DECREE: Settlement does not automatically delete criminal records.- Other references indicate that delation is contingent upon explicit court orders or petitions.
Many individuals facing criminal charges in India wonder: If it's a non-compoundable section and both parties compromise, is it deleted from criminal records or not? This question touches on a critical aspect of Indian criminal law under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). While private settlements seem like a straightforward path to resolution, non-compoundable offences present unique challenges due to public interest protections. This post breaks down the legal framework, judicial precedents, and practical implications for record deletion, drawing from key cases and guidelines. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under Section 320 CrPC, offences are classified into compoundable (settleable by parties with or without court permission) and non-compoundable ones. Non-compoundable offences, such as those under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), or 467 IPC (forgery), cannot be privately settled. Section 320(9) explicitly bars compounding to safeguard societal interests, making such agreements void. KAMAL DHAWAN VS STATE OF DELHI - 1999 0 Supreme(Del) 703HARVINDER SINGH VS BINDER KAUR - 2001 0 Supreme(Del) 1603Amirthalingam VS State by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai - 2007 0 Supreme(Mad) 3008
High Courts, however, wield inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIRs, charge-sheets, or proceedings if they abuse the process or serve no justice. This isn't compounding but a discretionary tool to prevent futility. Yet, quashing solely on compromise risks being per incuriam (beyond law) if it ignores Section 320(9). KAMAL DHAWAN VS STATE OF DELHI - 1999 0 Supreme(Del) 703Shamim Ahmad VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2020 0 Supreme(UK) 230
Indian courts balance statutory prohibitions with equity, allowing quashing in select non-compoundable cases based on factors like offence nature, societal impact, settlement genuineness, and remote conviction likelihood. Landmark Supreme Court rulings guide this:
Criteria include civil character, no heinous public wrong, and justice ends. Braham Prakash Bansal @ Rahul Bansal S/o Lt. Gopiram Bansal VS State of Assam Rep. by The PP, - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 746Sanjay @ Nirmal VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 833
Evolution: Pre-Gian Singh, strict bar; post, flexible for non-heinous cases. Supreme Court uses Article 142 for exceptions like offence conversion. CHITHIRAISELVAN VS STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 2953
Other cases reinforce: A petition quashed FIR post-compromise in a loan dispute, directing records be called and proceedings allowed. S. ANANDRAJ vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE In another, a criminal miscellaneous case disposed after compromise decree in family court. SUNIL KUMAR vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 81856
Quashing under Section 482 renders FIRs/charge-sheets non est (null), but deletion from police databases isn't automatic. Courts direct non-reliance, yet physical expungement needs explicit orders or compliance with state police manuals/NHRC guidelines. Accused may file writs (Article 226) or Section 482 petitions. KAMLENDER KASHYAP VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 2018 0 Supreme(HP) 898Rajeev Verma VS State of U. P - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 450Shamim Ahmad VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2020 0 Supreme(UK) 230Sanjay @ Nirmal VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 833
Risks persist for background checks; invalid compounding revives records. Sk. Saifuddin Mondal VS State - Crimes (1982)
Strategy: File Section 482 petition with settlement affidavits, stressing equity. Courts favor justice over technicalities where trials are futile.
In summary, while compromise doesn't automatically delete non-compoundable records, judicious quashing often achieves this effect. Always seek professional counsel, as outcomes depend on facts. Stay informed on evolving precedents for the best path forward.
#NonCompoundableOffences #QuashFIR #CriminalRecordsIndia
Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in petitioner vide Doc.No.3079/2012 on the file of the Sub- Registrar, Uthukuli; but, loan amount was not ... original petition has been filed praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime 5.Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed.
This Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly. ... Complainant marked to the police authorities, to the effect that they will not ... 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No.1210 of 2015 on the p style="position:absolute;white-space:
With the above observation, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is disposed of. ... ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPRAMISE DECREE IN O.P. NO. 240/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL DATED 13.10.2016 ... BY ADV SMT.V.RENJU OTHER PRESENT: SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. ... No.6749 of 2017 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2024 O R D E R This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the
Compramise pursis is taken on record and allowed.
Enter into Joint Memo Compramise Dated 29/11/2017. ... Avadi and also she will not give any complaints against the V.R.Section, High Court Madras. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 19 2.The Section Officer/Record Keeper, span style
The Forum dismissed the petition stating that petitions are highly delated. Heard both the counsels. We are also of the view that these positions are highly delated. ... Further she has not stated in complaint the rate of interest charged by the opposite parties. In all these reasons find no ground to admit the Revision Peition and the same is hereby dismissed.
its criminal functions. ... Confiscation of the goods involved in the crime is not a punishment which is prescribed under the aforesaid section. Confiscation of articles is otherwise permissible under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 but that alone by a proper order of the Customs Authorities. ... As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this petition is allowed and paragraph 16 of the judgment of the trial Magistrate dated 21-12-1979 is ordered to be delated otherwise qua the remaining the order re....
The said section provides that all applications and other proceedings relating to resumption of land pending before any Court immediately before the date of commencement of the amending Act, shall not have, any effect and shall abate. ... S. 14 of the principal Act has been delated and there is no provision in the, principal Act as now amended, far resumption by landlords except in the, cases coming under S. 15 as substituted. ... The result is that the proceedings taken by the landlords for resumption under S. 14 of the principal Act, sh....
The certificate produced by Public Witness -3 is of no evidentiary value in the absence of original records which were not produced or offered to be produced. ... In the cross-examination, counsel wanted the records on the basis of which the certificate Ext. P-1, was issued and the official stated thas he had not brought the record and he had also no personal knowledge about the matter. ... This factual statement is not born from the record. An application dated February, 3 1977 for summoning of the wit....
This procedure, which is almost invariably followed, is entirely traditional, like that in cases that are called proceedings under Section 115, Criminal P.C.; it has no connexion with any provision of law that exists or ever has existed except that the tradition arose out of a slovenly application of ... Case was called at 12-47 P.M. the plaintiff's pleader informed the Court that he had not turned up and asked for a postponement of the hearing till later in the day, which was refused; the plaintiff and his witnesses, who had been #HL_STA....
Police Station Crime No. Offences listed under Sections major and minor criminal acts. The history of criminal records of the revision are listed below: S.No. 1 H.5.L&O 269/2008 341, 147, 148, 302 IPC 2 H.5.L&O 1504/2012 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 336, 427, 307, 506(ii) IPC 3 H.5.L&O 1541/2012 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC 4 H.5.L&O 451/2013 147, 148, 341, 324, 302, 506(ii) IPC 5 H.5.L&O ....
Crl.R.C.No.1184 of 2019: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in CC. No.15 of 2016 on the file of the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases and set aside the order dated 03.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.2994 of 2018.) (Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.30512 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to C.C.No.15 of 2016 pending before the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, quash the same ....
Copy of this order be placed in the records of all the aforesaid connected criminal misc. Office shall communicate this order to the court concerned.
I have also perused the records in both the criminal original petitions carefully. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both petitions and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for State in both petitions and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013.
AW/2 Ashok Upadhyaya is also eye witness, who has stated that in what circumstances the accident occurred. Statement recorded in criminal case u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are not on record. Since the accident occurred on a State Highway and both the vehicles were going in opposite direction at the relevant time, therefore, it was a case of composite negligency so far as appellants are concerned as the deceased were occupant.
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
