High Court Quashes Section 307 IPC Proceedings Based on Compromise in Mother-Child Family Dispute

The petitioner, an orphan raised by the Missionaries of Charity, was placed under the guardianship of Respondent No. 2 and her late husband in 1993 under the Guardians and Wards Act.

On February 3, 2019, an altercation occurred where the petitioner allegedly attacked Respondent No. 2 with a wooden cross and a knife.

FIR No. 109/2019 was registered under Section 308 IPC (Attempt to commit culpable homicide), though the Trial Court later framed charges under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to murder).

During the trial, the parties—who shared a relationship akin to mother and daughter—entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated August 11, 2025, following the settlement of related civil disputes.

Respondent No. 2 forgave the petitioner and provided a "No Objection" for quashing the FIR, citing the private/family nature of the dispute.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings for a non-compoundable offence under Section 307 IPC based on a private settlement.

Whether the "family nature" of the relationship and the victim’s forgiveness outweigh the state's interest in prosecuting a serious offence.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, regarding the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the landmark principles in *Gian Singh v. State of Punjab*, which distinguish between compoundable offences and the quashing of non-compoundable "private" or "familial" disputes.

It further applied the specific guidelines for Section 307 IPC cases established in *Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab* and *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan*, which mandate an assessment of the nature of injuries, the timing of the settlement, and the likelihood of conviction.

The Court observed that while Section 307 IPC is generally a heinous crime against society, the specific facts of this case revealed an "overwhelmingly and predominatingly" family-oriented dispute.

The Court noted that the injuries were characterized as "simple" in the medical report, making the possibility of a Section 307 conviction remote.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the unique "mother-and-child" emotional bond between the parties, noting that Respondent No. 2 had raised the petitioner from infancy.

Applying the *Narinder Singh* timeline, the Court found that although the trial had commenced, the victim's consistent and resolute desire to forgive the petitioner across civil and criminal forums made the continuation of the trial a "travesty of justice".

The Court determined that tempering justice with mercy was appropriate given the petitioner's remorse and the settlement of all property claims.

The Court quashed FIR No. 109/2019 and all consequential proceedings.

However, to serve the public interest, the Court directed the petitioner to perform 30 sessions of community service (three hours each) at St. Stephen’s Hospital, Delhi, to be completed within four months.

It was also clarified that the petitioner holds no legal status as an "adopted daughter" or any rights of inheritance.