Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Gaurav Malik & Anr. v. State & Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (29 Aug 2016)

Notwithstanding fact that offence is non-compoundable, FIR can be quashed, if Court otherwise satisfied that, facts and circumstances of case so warrant

MANU/DE/2314/2016

Criminal

Present petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR, under Section 324/325/34 IPC registered at Police Station on basis of compromise deed executed between Petitioner and Respondent no.2. Dispute between parties has been amicably resolved with intervention of friends and family members of parties.

Inherent powers of High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. Respondent no.2 agreed to quashing of the FIR in question and stated that, matter has been settled out of his own free will. As matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law, if legal proceedings between parties are carried on. Present Court opined that this is a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice.

Incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with situation in absence of express provision of law to secure ends of justice such as, where process is abused or misused; where ends of justice cannot be secured; where process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid causing of harassment to any person by using provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid delay of legal process in delivery of justice. Whereas, inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent express provisions of law.

Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. In case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 Apex Court justified exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings to secure ends of justice in view of special facts and circumstances of case, even where offences were non-compoundable.

High Court while allowing the Petition held that, notwithstanding fact that Section 324 IPC is a non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing FIR under this section, if Court is otherwise satisfied that, facts and circumstances of case so warrant.

Relevant : Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. [MANU/SC/0842/2014 ], Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [MANU/SC/0808/2009 ], B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675

Tags : FIR   QUASHING   NON-COMPOUNDABLE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved