Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Distinction Between Compounding and Quashment – Role of Settlement in Non-Compoundable Offences – Application of Inherent Powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

Compounding And Quashing Are Distinct Concepts – High Court Erred In Treating Them As Interchangeable – Para 6. Mere Mention Of Section 307 IPC Should Not Preclude Quashing Under Section 482 CrPC – Court Must Examine The Nature Of Injury, Weapon Used, And Surrounding Circumstances – Para 12. Nature Of The Injury (Fracture Of A Finger) Did Not Justify Invocation Of Section 307 IPC – No Evidence Of A Life-Threatening Attack – Para 17. Absence Of Any Lethal Force And The Long Pendency Of The Case (Over 33 Years) Favored Quashing – Para 14. The Dispute Was Private And Had Been Amicably Settled – No Public Interest Was Involved In Continuing The Prosecution – Para 20. Proceeding With The Trial Would Be Futile – Would Amount To An Abuse Of Process Of Law – Para 20.

Appeal Allowed. – Para 24. High Court’s Order Set Aside. – Para 24. Criminal Proceedings Quashed. – Para 24.

Acts And Sections Discussed:

• Constitution Of India, 1950 (COI) – Article 142 – Inherent Power Of The Supreme Court.
• Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Inherent Power Of The High Court To Quash Criminal Proceedings.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 307 – Attempt To Murder – Section 326 – Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt – Section 147, 148, 149 – Unlawful Assembly – Section 323 – Voluntarily Causing Hurt.

Subjects:

Quashing Of Proceedings – Settlement – Non-Compoundable Offences – Section 307 IPC – Fracture Injury – Nature Of Weapon – Absence Of Lethal Force – Abuse Of Process Of Law – Exercise Of Inherent Powers – Ends Of Justice.

Nature Of The Litigation:

• Criminal Appeal – Filed Against The Order Of The Allahabad High Court Refusing To Quash Criminal Proceedings Under Section 482 CrPC – Based On The Ground That The Offence Under Section 307 IPC Is Non-Compoundable.

Who Approached The Court And For What Remedy?

• Appellants – Accused In A Criminal Case Pending Since 1991 – Approached The Supreme Court Seeking Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings Due To Settlement Between The Parties.

Reason For Filing The Case

• High Court Refused To Quash The Proceedings – Held That An Offence Under Section 307 IPC Cannot Be Compounded.

What Had Already Been Decided Until Now?

a) The Case Arose From An FIR Registered In 1991 Following A Dispute Over Irrigation Water – Case Crime No. 248/91.
b) The Police Initially Filed A Closure Report – Held That The Complaint Was False – Para 3(vi).
c) The Trial Court Rejected The Closure Report On 05.09.1992 – Summoned The Accused Under Various Sections, Including Section 307 IPC – Para 3(vii).
d) Criminal Revision Remained Pending For 23 Years – Dismissed In 2015 – Para 3(ix).
e) The Parties Settled The Dispute In 2022 – Injured Party Filed An Affidavit In Support Of Quashing – Para 3(x).
f) High Court Dismissed The Application Under Section 482 CrPC – Held That The Offence Could Not Be Compounded – Para 3(xiii).

Issues:

a) Whether The Criminal Proceedings Under Section 307 IPC Could Be Quashed Under Section 482 CrPC Despite Being Non-Compoundable? – Para 5.
b) Whether The Injury And Nature Of The Offence Warranted The Invocation Of Section 307 IPC? – Para 17.
c) Whether Continuing With The Prosecution Would Be An Abuse Of Process Of Law In Light Of The Settlement? – Para 20.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellants – Allegations Lacked Specific Intent To Cause Murder – Injury Sustained Was A Fracture Of A Finger – Case Was A Cross-Case And Arose Out Of A Private Dispute – Settlement Was Entered Voluntarily – Para 4.
• State Of U.P. – Placed Reliance On Precedents Governing Quashment Of Non-Compoundable Offences – Left The Decision To The Court – Para 21.
• Respondent No. 2 (Victim) – Supported Quashing Based On The Compromise Entered Into Voluntarily – Para 4.

Ratio

a) Mere Mention Of Section 307 IPC In An FIR Does Not Prevent The Court From Exercising Powers Under Section 482 CrPC To Quash Proceedings If The Ingredients Of The Offence Are Not Satisfied. – Para 12.
b) Where The Dispute Is Private, The Injury Is Not Life-Threatening, And The Parties Have Settled Voluntarily, The Court Should Exercise Inherent Powers To Quash The Proceedings. – Para 19.
c) The Test For Invoking Section 307 IPC Requires The Court To Examine The Nature Of The Injury, The Weapon Used, And The Intent Behind The Act. – Para 17.
d) Continuing The Prosecution In A Case That Has Been Amicably Settled Would Be An Abuse Of Process And Contrary To The Ends Of Justice. – Para 20.