Will Mere Mention Of Section 307 IPC In Criminal Proceedings Force A Court To Adopt A ‘Hands-Off Approach’ When Parties Come Forward With A Settlement? SC Explains
The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court which had refused to quash criminal proceedings in a 1991 attempt to murder case.
The Supreme Court has explained whether the mere mention of Section 307 of the IPC in the criminal proceedings forces the Court to adopt a “hands-off approach” when parties come forward with a settlement.
The Court also had to determine the duty of the Court and the tests to be applied to decide in which cases settlements would be accepted and in which cases it would not be. In the present case, the Court allowed the appeal filed by the Appellants thereby setting aside the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC
A Bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice SVN Bhatti held, “It could not be said, on facts, considering all the circumstances that this is a crime which has such an harmful effect on the public and that it has the effect of seriously threatening the well-being of the society. We make it clear that we are saying so on the facts of the present case. We are also firmly of the opinion that proceeding with the trial, when parties have amicably resolved the dispute in the present case, would be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceedings.”
AOR Anupam Mishra represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Garima Prashad appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court which had refused to quash criminal proceedings in a case where a settlement was reached between the parties in a 1991 case involving an alleged offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court referred to its Judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), wherein it was explained that “Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.”
It was further explained that “In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.”
The Bench noted that after the investigation, the police closed the case in its final report in 1991. It was the trial Court, which by its order in 1992, refused to accept the same and summoned the Appellants, the Bench stated.
“The incident is of 11.08.1991, i.e. about 33½ years back. No doubt, there is a reference to the firing in the FIR but admittedly there was no injury. The allegation is that firing was done by Abdul Waris. He is since deceased. The facts, assuming to be true, also do not make out a case of common object for the appellants under Section 149 IPC insofar as the offence of Section 307 is concerned,” it further noted.
“Keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury, on facts, we are inclined to conclude that the overt act attributed to the appellants does not bring the case within the four corners of the Section 307 of IPC, either on a stand-alone basis or as held above with the aid of Section 149 of IPC,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Court held, “Considering the special features of the case and taking the settlement on record and applying the law, we find that this is a fit case where proceedings… of 1991 pending…should be quashed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 182)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Anupam Mishra; Advocate Jenis V. Francis
Respondents: Senior Advocate Garima Prashad; AOR Sudeep Kumar; Advocates Manisha and Rupali
