TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decision on Criminal Proceedings, Emphasizing Seriousness of Offense</h1> <h3>State of Rajasthan Versus Shambhu Kewat and Another</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise, emphasizing that the nature of the crime under ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction and sentencing under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.2. Compounding of non-compoundable offences.3. High Court's quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise.Summary:1. Conviction and Sentencing under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC:The respondents were charge-sheeted for offences u/s 307, 323, 325, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The Sessions Court found them guilty u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000 each. The court noted that the attack was premeditated and not due to sudden provocation, thus rejecting a lenient view.2. Compounding of Non-Compoundable Offences:The High Court allowed the appeal based on a compromise between the parties, stating that the offence was more a crime against an individual than society. The High Court quashed the proceedings, emphasizing the discretionary power u/s 482 CrPC, despite Section 307 IPC being non-compoundable.3. High Court's Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Based on Compromise:The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for misinterpreting the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab regarding Sections 482 and 320 CrPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings u/s 482 CrPC is distinct from the power to compound offences u/s 320 CrPC. The Court highlighted that the nature and gravity of the crime and societal impact must be considered, which the High Court overlooked.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, stating that the crime was against society at large and not just an individual. The case was remanded to the High Court to be decided on merits within six months, emphasizing that leniency in serious offences like this would undermine the criminal justice system and societal welfare.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
