Team  SoOLEGAL

Bombay HC: Conviction in a Non-Compoundable Case can't be set aside by HC U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. on the Ground of Compromise Except in Rarest of Rare Cases

Team SoOLEGAL 7 Jan 2021 4:33pm

Bombay HC: Conviction in a Non-Compoundable Case can't be set aside by HC U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. on the Ground of Compromise Except in Rarest of Rare Cases

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) on Tuesday, 6th January, 2021 gave a judgment that the High Court cannot set aside the conviction order of the convict in a non-compoundable situation, when exercising its inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., basing on the grounds that the accused and the plaintiff have come to a settlement at  post conviction stage. This can only be done in the rarest of rare case. This particular statement was made in response to a reference to the Division Bench of the High Court after three separate judgments issued by the High Court noted a clash of decisions.

The matter of reference had emerged when a division bench of the High Court held that the exercise of authority under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the order for conviction had to be exercised only in extraordinary situations. The division bench in non-accordance with the judgments of the High Court framed two questions and called for an answer to be made by a larger bench. Accordingly, a bench of three judges of the High Court assembled to address the questions so framed.

First case was, Udhav Kisanrao Ghodse v. State of Maharashtra[1], where the accused was convicted under Section 354 and 452 of IPC, then the accused and plaintiff came into a compromise between themselves. The accused appealed to the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C where the division bench relied upon another case Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v. State of Maharashtra 2008 (Bombay HC) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.[2] and set aside the conviction as a cordial relationship would be better for the society.

Second case was, Azmatkhan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra[3]. It was a similar case where the accused was guilty under Section 354 and 452 of IPC and the conviction was set aside following the judgment of the case Udhav Kisanrao Ghodse v. State of Maharashtra.

Third case was, Shivaji Haribhau Jawanjal v. State of Maharashtra[4], where the accused was guilty under Section 323, 354, 452 and 506 of IPC and later the plaintiff and the accused approached the court for settlement of their conflict under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the division bench referred to a judgment of the case Kiran Tulshiram Ingale v. Anupama P. Gaikwad & Ors. (2006) (Bombay HC) and decided that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be used to provide settlement between complainant and accused even after the accused is proven guilty.



Tagged: Bombay HC   Division Bench   High Court judgments   Maharashtra  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 1 NO 0
Featured Members view all

New Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.