Indian Penal Code 406 - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that the release of case property (cash) under Section 451 CrPC was premature. The ownership of seized money, being the proceeds of alleged crime with multiple claimants, cannot be determined conclusively at an interim stage but must be adjudicated after a full trial upon consideration of all evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (CR No. 11206078220159 of 2022) alleging that the appellant-accused, through his proprietary firm Jay Gopal Trading Company, committed cheating and criminal breach of trust against a complainant and other merchants in transactions involving castor seeds. During the investigation, the police seized cash amounting to Rs. 50,00,000. Respondent No. 2, another merchant claiming the seized cash was for goods he sold to the...

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot revive quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC after parties have reached a lawful compromise, emphasizing the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing judgments except for clerical errors. It clarified that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, allowing recall only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of process. The judgment reaffirmed that violation of compromise terms must be addressed through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to this settled legal position. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute in Haryana, where an FIR (No. 432/2014) was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Raghunath Sharma and others for alleged ...

Tag: Indian Penal Code 406

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Seized Property, Says “Expediency” Under CrPC Has Limits

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise