Skip to main content

High Court has power to permit the parties to compound the offence even in a non-compoundable case

In Erappa v. Somaningappa, the dispute  before the Karnataka High Court related to the sell of a plot. The complainant alleged that Petitioners 1 and 2, fraudulently, by showing another plot had sold the plot in dispute to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 68,000/-. On enquiring about the plot in dispute from the Rehabilitation Office, the complainant came to know that the plot is not standing in the name of the petitioners. The complainant alleged that with the intention to cause financial loss and to cheat the complainant, they have sold the property. As such, the case was registered.

The Court perused the averments and documents and found that after the incident took place, there were negotiations and interventions by the elders and well-wishers and the cancellation deed was executed in this behalf. The petitioners also repaid the amount. The matter was settled and the memorandum of settlement under Section 482 of CrPC was submitted.

The High Court followed the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein it was held that the High Court has got ample power under Section 482, CrPC even to permit the parties to compound offences in non-compoundable cases and to quash the criminal proceedings or F.I.R or complaint. Accordingly the petitions were allowed. [Erappa v. Somaningappa, Criminal Petition No. 200306/2017, dated August 7, 2017]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2017/08/19/high-court-has-ample-power-to-permit-the-parties-to-compound-the-offence-even-in-a-non-compoundable-case/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more