This court rejected a petition seeking quashing of an FIR based on alleged compromise, noting no record of compromise. It held that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not entail an enquiry into the offence's nature or the feasibility of compromise.
None. Petition dismissed as misconceived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
((-1-))
mst
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1572 OF 2008
Gopikrishna V. ChoudharyPetitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & ors.Respondents
Mr.M.K.Kocharekar i/by Rajiv Sawant for
petitioner.
Mr.F.R.Shaikh, APP.
CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND
A.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ.
DATE : 12th August 2008
PC :
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR on the
ground that he has compromised with the
complainant. There is nothing on record to
show that any compromise has been effected
between the petitioner and the complainant. If
the matter is compromised between the parties,
then the petitioner has another remedy even
before the Investigating Officer and even if
charge sheet is filed before the concerned
Magistrate.
2. This Court under the powers under section
((-2-))
482 of Cr.P.C. would not start an enquiry
whether the FIR makes out any cognizable or
non-cognizable offence and if so, whether the
petitioner can enter into a compromise.
Petition is misconceived. Dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can quash an FIR on the ground of compromise when no compromise is on record.
Whether power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. includes making an enquiry into the nature of the offence and existence of compromise.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gopikrishna V. Choudhary
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
Bilal Nazki
A.A.KumbhAKoni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court