https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350039 Settlement between the parties does not justify quashing an FIR under inherent jurisdiction where the allegations disclose extortion, forgery, fabrication of documents, conspiracy and misuse of a forged power of attorney to affect land title. The Court distinguished Section 482 CrPC from compounding under Section 320 CrPC and held that inherent power must be exercised with regard to the gravity and societal impact of the offence. Because the complaint alleged serious criminal conduct, and the accused were also said to be absconding with criminal antecedents, continuation of prosecution was necessary to secure the ends of justice. The refusal to quash the FIR was therefore justified. en-us Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Nov 2021 13:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350039 Settlement between the parties does not justify quashing an FIR under inherent jurisdiction where the allegations disclose extortion, forgery, fabrication of documents, conspiracy and misuse of a forged power of attorney to affect land title. The Court distinguished Section 482 CrPC from compounding under Section 320 CrPC and held that inherent power must be exercised with regard to the gravity and societal impact of the offence. Because the complaint alleged serious criminal conduct, and the accused were also said to be absconding with criminal antecedents, continuation of prosecution was necessary to secure the ends of justice. The refusal to quash the FIR was therefore justified. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350039