Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.307 – Complaint was filed against the appellants under various sections including s.307, IPC – However, parties later settled the dispute – High Court declined to quash the proceedings holding that a case involving allegation of offence u/s.307, IPC cannot be compounded – Interference with: Held: Impugned order set aside – High Court mixed up the concepts of compounding and powers of quashing – Further, mere mention of s.307 IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet does not preclude the Court from quashing the proceedings if there is a settlement – Court can examine as to whether incorporation of s.307, IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is evidence to back it going by the nature of injuries sustained; as to whether the injuries are inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapon used – In the present case, admittedly, there is a settlement between the parties – Furthermore, on facts, considering the injury, the nature of the weapon used and the overt act attributed to the appellants, no offence u/s.307, IPC was made out either on a stand-alone basis or with the aid of s.149 – As a matter of fact, the police had actually closed the case in its final report however, it was the trial Court which refused to accept the same and summoned the appellants – Present is a fit case where pending proceedings should be quashed – Proceedings quashed. [Paras 12, 14, 19, 23, 24]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing vis-à-vis compounding:
Held: Compounding and quashing are conceptually different – However, merely because there is a settlement, for certain categories of offences proceedings will not be quashed because the crimes that have harmful effects on the public and consist of wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society cannot be quashed, only because the accused and the victim have amicably settled the matter – In the instant case, the nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury (fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger), the offence alleged, on facts, does not fall in that category of cases where the court should deny relief in the event of a settlement – On facts, considering all the circumstances, the crime is not such which has a harmful effect on the public and has the effect of seriously threatening the well-being of the society – Proceeding with the trial, when parties have amicably resolved the dispute is futile and would be a grave abuse of process – Thus, settlement ought to be given effect to by quashing the proceedings – Proceedings quashed. [Para 20]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.