#quash criminal proceedings

The Supreme Court ruled that a criminal case can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC only when the victim himself settles the dispute, rejecting the notion that a third party can seek quash. This distinction separates compounding from quashing and limits judicial interference to victim-initiated settlements, affecting litigants and prosecutors in pending criminal matters.

Allahabad HC quashes 20-year-old prosecutions under the repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, ruling that continuing proceedings under a repealed statute constitutes abuse of process. The judgment mandates quashing of all pending PFA Act cases post-enactment of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, impacting food industry stakeholders facing legacy prosecutions.

Allahabad HC quashes summoning orders under Section 138 NI Act issued via printed proforma, ruling that absence of judicial reasoning renders such orders invalid. The judgment reaffirms that magistrates must apply independent mind before taking cognizance, failing which due process is violated.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that the existence of a prima facie cognizable offence - even amid pending civil disputes or witness contradictions - precludes quashing of criminal proceedings under inherent powers. This reinforces that civil disagreements cannot shield accused persons from criminal liability when serious offences like trespass, assault, and criminal intimidation are alleged, setting a clear boundary for courts handling overlapping civil-criminal disputes.

Bombay High Court holds that courts may quash non-compoundable IPC offences arising from family disputes upon amicable settlement, upholding justice over procedural rigidity.