High Court reaffirms its inherent supervisory jurisdiction, permitting compensation deposit beyond the stipulated period and directing immediate release upon payment, serving as binding authority in criminal quashing petitions
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | R/SCR.A/11470/2025 of DHIRUBHAI KURJIBHAI PARMAR Vs STATE OF GUJARAT |
| CNR | GJHC240590912025 |
| Decision Date | 19-08-2025 |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal law – quashing petitions; probation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that refusal to accept compensation deposit beyond the prescribed period under a probation order constitutes an abuse of process and falls within its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The Court may quash such refusal to enforce compliance with its order, direct the trial court to accept the deposit, and secure the accused’s release if no other custody is required. This exercise of inherent power prevents injustice where the accused remains willing to fulfill the compensatory condition. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Sections 177, 184, 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act; the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and granted probation on condition of depositing ₹20,000 within seven days as compensation; failure to deposit led to issuance of warrant and custody, and the magistrate refused a belated application to deposit the amount. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court may invoke Section 482 CrPC to quash a magistrate’s refusal to accept delayed compensation under a probation order.
- Trial courts are obliged to accept compensation deposits beyond the original deadline when the accused demonstrates readiness to pay.
- Deposit of the ordered compensation shall lead to immediate release of the accused if no further custody is warranted.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Sessions Court granted probation subject to deposit of ₹20,000 within seven days; non-compliance triggered a warrant and custodial detention.
- The petitioner filed under Section 482 CrPC, expressing willingness to pay the full amount.
- The High Court recognized its inherent supervisory jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and to enforce compliance with probation conditions.
- Exercising that power, the Court quashed the magistrate’s order refusing to accept the deposit, directed payment by a fixed date, and ordered release upon deposit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Willingness to deposit ₹20,000 despite missing the original deadline.
- Refusal by the magistrate to accept the deposit was unjust and led to unnecessary custody.
Factual Background
The petitioner was convicted under multiple sections of the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act. On appeal, the Sessions Court upheld the conviction but granted probation conditioned on paying ₹20,000 to the injured party within seven days. Failing to meet this deadline, the magistrate refused a subsequent application to deposit the amount and issued a warrant, leading to the petitioner’s custody. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, expressing readiness to make the payment.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC: offences relating to rash/negligent driving causing grievous hurt.
- Sections 177, 184, 134 MV Act: offences pertaining to driving without licence, dangerous driving, and accident reporting.
- Section 482 CrPC: High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – existing principle of High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC reaffirmed.