Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which consisted of Justices Vinay Joshi, AS Chandurkar, and NB Surawanshi while analysing the extent of authority that can be exercised by the High court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to quash criminal proceedings following the prosecution of a non-compoundable which has reached a settlement between the parties, opined that the inherent powers to quash a conviction under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure must be invoked in the rarest of rare cases and not as a frequent practice, even if the parties in dispute have amicably settled the matter.
The Bench declined to accept that in cases where a settlement had been concluded between the defendant and the claimant, the conviction could be reversed by citing inherent powers under section 482 and further elaborated that the redress for appealing the warrant of conviction is open to the convicted by means of an appeal. The court further noted that any settlement entered into after the prosecution for a non-compoundable offense cannot, by itself, result in the acquittal of the convicted. Therefore, the agreement or settlement is simply a mitigating or relief factor that can be taken into consideration at the hearing of the appeal or revision plea challenging the conviction which can further be considered while imposing punishments.
The Court observed that it was not acceptable to set aside the conviction at the appeal/revisional level only on the basis that the parties had entered into a settlement. It further elaborated stating that if a verdict cannot be put aside during the appeal or revision period merely on the basis that the parties to the suit have entered into a settlement, a comparable outcome cannot be reached in the following proceeding under the ambit of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
86540
103860
630
114
59824