After Complainant and Two Injured Men Settle, Karnataka HC Quashes Attempt-to-Murder and SC/ST Act Case Against 3 Accused

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1–3, sought to quash proceedings in Special Case No. 5/2023 arising from Crime No. 178/2022 of Ramadurga Police Station.

The prosecution alleged that, following an earlier altercation, the petitioners and others assaulted the complainant and two accompanying persons with an iron rod, knife and brick, causing injuries, and threatened them.

The charges included offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

After the charge sheet was filed, the petitioners, complainant and injured respondents jointly sought to resolve the dispute; the complainant and injured persons appeared before the Court and affirmed the compromise.

The Court considered Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the source of the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; that power is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences under Section 320 CrPC and may extend to non-compoundable offences, but must be exercised sparingly.

The Court applied the principles in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, including that serious and heinous offences are generally not to be quashed merely on compromise; for a Section 307 IPC charge, the Court may assess the nature and location of injuries, weapons used and medical evidence rather than rely solely on the charge’s inclusion; and it should consider the likelihood of conviction, the stage of proceedings, and whether settlement promotes harmony.

The Court noted that the dispute arose between persons known to each other and that the complainant and injured persons had voluntarily settled the matter with the petitioners, without coercion.

Applying Narinder Singh, it considered the settlement and the prospect that witnesses would be unlikely to support the prosecution, concluding that the chances of conviction were remote and that continuing the prosecution would be unnecessary and an abuse of process.

It therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, notwithstanding that the alleged offences were non-compoundable.

It quashed the proceedings in Special Case No. 5/2023 arising from Crime No. 178/2022 for the specified IPC and SC/ST Act offences insofar as they concerned petitioners/accused Nos. 1–3; the compromise petition was allowed accordingly.