SECTION 482( Speaker 2 is chillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll bro)

482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.

The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First

Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a
settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not
the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding
an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is
governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even
if the offence is non compoundable.

While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and
abundance it has to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court. The decision as to whether
a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground
that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately
on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive
elaboration of principles can be formulated.

An FIR can be quashed in High court under section 482 crpc.

Accused and complainant want to compromise but offences are non

compoundable and police refuses to do the same.

Arguments raised?
Whether section 124A of the IPC,1860 constitutes an unreasonable
restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a)
of the constituition of india?

Article 19 1(a) provides the right of freedom of speech and expression in

Indian Constitution in any form, be it writing, commercial advertisement,
publishing, public speaking, etc. , article 19(2) shall be taken into
consideration which comes to the rescue for section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code,1860. It clearly states that nothing inA.19(1)(a) shall affect the operation
of any existing law, or prevent the state from making any law, in so far as
such law imposes reasonable restrictions in the exercise of the right
conferred by the said sub-clause in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of
India, the security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence. The JNU student union’s president shall be held
responsible for such deeds as whenever the annual rally is initiated at first,
the president is informed about such rally. When he gives his consent, then
only then the rally takes place. He is also liable for such treacherous act as the
other students of JNU are. The person who talks about the Indian
Constitution so much, has himself failed to fulfill the duties as a citizen under
Article 51(A).

ARGUMENTS RAISED

Whether section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, constitutes anunreasonable
restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India?

AR. 19(1)(A) CAN BE CURTAILED

THE JNU STUDENT COUNCIL’S PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FORTHE

ANTI- INDIA CHANTS

THE STUDENTS OF JNU HAD SEDITIOUS INTENTIONS

There are some offences, which cannot be compounded. They can only
be quashed. The reason for this is, because the nature of offence is so
grave and criminal, that the Accused cannot be allowed to go scot-free.
Here, in these types of cases generally, it is the "state", i.e. police, who
has filed the case, and hence the question of complainant entering into
compromise does not arise.
All those offences, which are not mentioned in the list under section
(320) of CrPC, are non-compoundable offences.

RELATED CASE LAWS

KAL BATA DEGA BRO, FILHAL THAK GAYA HAI

BRO…GOODNIGHT BRO