Criminal proceedings under Section 307 IPC may be quashed on compromise where the dispute is private and conviction is remote.

The petitioner sought quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, including the FIR in Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307 and 504/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Dhanbad, by invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

At the time of hearing, investigation was continuing and no charge-sheet had been filed.

The petitioner and the informant jointly submitted that, through the intervention of well-wishers and common friends, they had amicably settled the dispute; the petitioner claimed mistaken identity and asserted that he was not present at the place of occurrence.

The informant stated that he no longer wished to pursue the case. The State raised no objection to quashing the proceedings in view of the compromise.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and pending criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the petitioner and the informant, notwithstanding the allegation under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, after the parties’ complete settlement and during the stage of investigation, would constitute an abuse of the process of law where the likelihood of conviction is remote and bleak?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court reiterated that inherent powers may be exercised to quash even non-compoundable offences after settlement, but only sparingly and with caution; offences that are heinous, involve mental depravity, or have a serious societal impact ordinarily should not be quashed merely on compromise.

The Court further applied the principle that although Section 307 IPC is generally treated as a serious offence against society, the High Court may examine the nature of the injuries, the body part affected, the weapon used, the medical material, and the stage of the proceedings to determine whether the allegation under Section 307 IPC is substantial or merely formal.

Settlement reached while investigation is still pending, before filing of the charge-sheet, may receive more liberal consideration where the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of the prosecution would cause oppression, prejudice or injustice.

The Court found that the dispute was essentially private in character and that no public policy or wider societal interest was implicated.

Although Section 307 IPC was included in the FIR, the Court did not treat its mere invocation as determinative; it assessed the overall circumstances, including the parties’ complete settlement, the informant’s unwillingness to proceed, the petitioner’s assertion of mistaken identity, and the fact that investigation was still pending without a charge-sheet.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the likelihood of conviction was remote and bleak and that continuing the prosecution would subject the petitioner to oppression and prejudice despite the compromise.

Quashing the proceedings was therefore considered necessary both to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law.

It quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceedings, including the FIR in Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Dhanbad, qua the petitioner.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the connected interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly.