NDLI: Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Section 482 CrPC Quashing of criminal prosecution
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482 and 320 – Quashing of criminal prosecution – On basis of compromise/ settlement between the parties – Jurisdiction within framework of s.320 CrPC vis-à-vis powers vested in High Court u/s.482 CrPC or in Supreme Court u/Art. 142 of the Constitution – Held: Limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of s.320 CrPC is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it u/s.482 CrPC – As opposed to s.320 CrPC where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court u/s.482 CrPC or vested in Supreme Court u/Art. 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of s.320 CrPC – Nonetheless, such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 142. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal prosecution – On basis of compromise/settlement between the parties – Scope of powers exercisable by High Court u/s.482 CrPC – Held: High Court having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers u/s.482 CrPC, even if the offences are non-compoundable – Criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction – However, the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 142 – Quashing of criminal prosecution – Nature of powers vested in Supreme Court u/Art. 142 – Held: Plenary jurisdiction of Supreme Court to impart complete justice u/Art.142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions – Even in absence of an express provision akin to s.482 CrPC conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, jurisdiction exercisable u/Art. 142 embraces the Supreme Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 568
Petitioner	Ramgopal & Anr.
Respondent	The State Of Madhya Pradesh
SCR	[2021] 6 S.C.R. 249
Judgement Date	2021-09-29
Case Number	1489

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

N. Soundaram Vs. P.k. Pounraj & Anr.

Priyanka Mishra & Ors Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Goloconda Unga Swamy and Anr.

Mohannan Vs. Prabha G. Nair and Anr.

Anil Mishra Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Rashmi Chopra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Radhey Shyam Khemka and Anr. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. Etc.

Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

N. Soundaram Vs. P.k. Pounraj & Anr.

Priyanka Mishra & Ors Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Goloconda Unga Swamy and Anr.

Mohannan Vs. Prabha G. Nair and Anr.

Anil Mishra Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Rashmi Chopra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Radhey Shyam Khemka and Anr. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. Etc.

Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh