After Injured Man’s Mother Settles Mela-Scuffle Case, Uttarakhand HC Quashes Attempt-to-Murder Trial Against Two Men

The applicants faced a chargesheet and trial under Sections 109, 3(5) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), arising from a fairground altercation in which the injured person sustained incised wounds to the forehead and chest.

The applicants sought quashing of the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order and trial proceedings on the basis of a compromise.

The complainant and other respondents filed affidavits confirming the settlement and stated that they did not wish to pursue the case.

The applicants’ counsel submitted that the injuries were not grievous and that there was no intention to cause death.

The State objected that the offences were non-compoundable.

The Court relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, stating that the Supreme Court had permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences with the Court’s permission.

It also invoked the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where a compromise makes the possibility of conviction remote and bleak, and continuation of the proceedings would cause prejudice and injustice to the accused.

The Court noted that the parties had settled the dispute, the complainant no longer wished to pursue the proceedings, and the compromise was confirmed through affidavits and interaction with the parties.

Although the State objected that the offences were non-compoundable, the Court applied the compromise-based principles it identified and concluded that the proceedings should not continue.

The Court did not separately analyse the applicants’ submissions regarding the nature of the injuries or the absence of intent to cause death.

It directed their release from judicial custody forthwith, unless they were wanted in another case, and disposed of the application accordingly.