After Cross-FIR Parties Settle Dispute Over Altercation, Uttarakhand HC Quashes Proceedings Including Attempt-To-Murder Charge

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

The court held

The Court allowed the compounding application and the application under Section 528 BNSS.

It also directed

It quashed the charge-sheet, the cognizance/summoning order dated 23 October 2019, and the proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2024 (Old Criminal Case No. 5507 of 2019), arising from FIR No. 207 of 2019.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The applicants sought to quash the charge-sheet, the cognizance/summoning order dated 23 October 2019, and the proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2024, arising from an FIR alleging offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 506 IPC against applicant no. 5, and Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325 and 506 IPC against applicants nos. 1–4.

¶ 4

The parties had lodged cross-FIRs concerning the same altercation, in which both sides sustained injuries; the applicants submitted that the dispute was personal and had been amicably settled.

¶ 6–8

The respondents confirmed the voluntary settlement and stated that they did not wish to pursue the prosecution.

¶ 8

The State opposed the application on the ground that some offences were non-compoundable, but did not dispute the settlement or that neither side’s injuries were dangerous to life.

¶ 9

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

¶ 11–13

ii.Whether, in the circumstances of this personal dispute and the parties’ voluntary settlement, continuation of the proceedings would serve any useful purpose.

¶ 10, 12–14

03Law Applied

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice; that jurisdiction is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences under Section 320 CrPC.

¶ 11

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court stated that proceedings arising from disputes essentially private or personal in nature may, in appropriate cases, be quashed after an amicable settlement, even where some offences are non-compoundable, having regard to the allegations, circumstances, and genuineness of the settlement.

¶ 11–13

Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 147 Section 148 Section 323 Section 324 Section 325 Section 307 Section 506

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 320 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court considered the cross-FIRs, the personal nature of the altercation, the injuries sustained by both sides, and the parties’ voluntary and unequivocal settlement.

¶ 10, 14

Although some alleged offences were non-compoundable, the Court treated that fact as not precluding the exercise of its distinct inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶ 11

Given the settlement and the respondents’ stated unwillingness to pursue the case, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

¶ 14–15