Skip to main content

Some Legal Terms in Criminal Law

 The criminal proceedings start with the filing of a complaint. The power of the police officer to investigate the crime is based on whether the offence is of a serious type or a lesser serious type. Accordingly, the offences are categorized as bailable and non-bailable, cognizable and non-cognizable and compoundable and non-compoundable.

 Difference between a bailable and a non-bailable Offence:

 If a person is arrested for a bailable offence, the police can immediately release him on personal surety. He/she does not have to be produced in court. Non-bailable offences are of a more serious type, which invokes higher punishment (imprisonment for a period of three or more years). In such cases, the police do not have the power to grant bail. Serious crimes such as rape, murder, dowry death, cruelty to wives, etc. come within its purview. However, even in these cases, when the accused person is produced before the magistrate, he/she has the right to file a bail application, and the magistrate has the power to grant him/her bail. If he/she does not have a lawyer the person is entitled to legal aid to make this application. If the person is apprehensive that he will be arrested for a criminal offence, he/she file an application for anticipatory bail in advance and avoid the arrest for a limited period. If anticipatory bail is granted, even if an FIR is registered, the police will investigate the matter without arresting the accused.

Compoundable and Non-compoundable Offences

The criminal law permits some minor offences to be ―compromised or ―settled between the parties. A detailed list of these is provided under Section 320 of Cr,.PC. These are termed as ―compoundable‖ offences. However, major offences such as rape, murder, decoity, dowry death, cruelty to wives, etc. cannot be compromised between the parties. Only the higher courts, i.e. the concerned High Court or the Supreme Court has the authority to compound these offences. Hence these are termed as ―non-compoundable‖ offences.

 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mandatory Injunction Not Automatic: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Relief Under Section 39 of Specific Relief Act

In a significant clarification on the scope of mandatory injunctions, the Supreme Court in Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi has held that the grant of a mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , is not a matter of right but one of judicial discretion , to be exercised only when a legally enforceable obligation has been clearly breached . ⚖️ Breach Must Be Specific and Proven The Court emphasized that a mandatory injunction , which compels a party to perform a specific act, can be granted only when there is a demonstrable breach of an obligation that is legally binding . "The breach of obligation and performance and compulsion to perform certain acts in relation to such obligation must be specifically established before a mandatory injunction can be granted," the Bench observed. This reinforces that the courts must be satisfied not just about the existence of a duty or obligation, but also th...
Post a Comment
Read more

When Judicial Orders Meet Dishonesty: The Supreme Court's Critical Distinction on Disciplinary Action Against Judges

In a significant observation that challenges long-established judicial doctrine, the Supreme Court of India has articulated a nuanced position on the liability of judges for their judicial orders. While hearing a writ petition filed by a District Judge from Madhya Pradesh who challenged his suspension by the High Court, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant raised a pivotal question: if a judicial order is passed based on dishonest or extraneous considerations rather than mere judicial error , why cannot disciplinary action be initiated? This observation marks an important evolution in the jurisprudence surrounding judicial immunity and disciplinary responsibility. ​ The Case: Factual Background The Supreme Court bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi, examined the suspension of the District Judge immediately before his retirement. Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing the petitioner, contended that his client possessed an exemplary...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court Reaffirms "Fraud Unravels Everything" Principle in Landmark Vishnu Vardhan Case

Overview The Supreme Court of India in Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. made a definitive pronouncement on the relationship between fraud and the doctrine of merger. The three-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan held that if a High Court decision upheld by the Supreme Court was obtained through fraud, an aggrieved party may file a civil appeal against the High Court's order rather than seeking review of the Supreme Court's judgment . Legal Context and Background The dispute centered around a parcel of land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, jointly purchased in 1997 by three individuals: Vishnu Vardhan (appellant), Reddy Veeranna, and T. Sudhakar . The land was subsequently acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) in 2005, forming part of Sector 18, NOIDA . The trio initially pursued joint litigation to protect their interests in the land. However, Reddy allegedly emb...
Post a Comment
Read more