Skip to main content

Heinous Offences cannot be settled between parties

A crime of ‘serious nature’ should be treated as a crime against the society and not an individual and such a case cannot be quashed even if the offender and victim reach an amicable settlement, the Bombay high court has said.

A division bench of justices N.H. Patil and P.D. Naik on 25 August refused to quash a case lodged against 12 people on charges of attempt to murder and various other sections of the IPC. The accused had petitioned the high court seeking to quash the FIR lodged against them on the ground that they have amicably settled the dispute with the complainants.

The high court, however, refused to accept this contention and said, “The accused have committed crime against the society.” The bench noted that if the crime committed by the accused is ‘heinous’ and of a ‘serious nature’ then it should be treated as a crime against the society and not against an individual alone.

“It becomes the duty of the State to punish the crime doers even if there is a settlement/compromise between the perpetrators of the crime and the victim,” the court said, dismissing the accused persons’ petition. A case was registered in July by Zia-ul-Haq Nijamuddin Ansari and Shahanawaz Khan against the 12 people for attempt to murder and various other charges under the Indian Penal Code at suburban Kurla police station.

According to the complaint, on 5 July, the complainant and his brother were assaulted by the accused after they refused to sell spare parts in their shop at a lesser price as demanded by the accused persons. In the scuffle, the accused persons allegedly poured hot oil from a snack shop nearby over the complainant due to which he suffered severe burn injuries all over his body.

When passersby intervened, the accused ran away. An FIR was lodged following which all the accused persons were arrested. However, later, the complainant and his brother sent a letter to the police claiming that the whole incident was an accident and that they do not want to pursue the case.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...