Non-compoundable Section 307 IPC proceedings may be quashed upon settlement to secure the ends of justice.

The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR No. 190/2024, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar East under Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder).

The incident involved a quarrel and scuffle arising from a misunderstanding while the petitioner’s brother was consuming liquor with the respondents.

Following the filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges, the parties entered into a mutual settlement on 21.03.2025.

The injured party (Respondent No. 3) and the complainant (Respondent No. 2) stated before the Court that the matter was settled without coercion, medical expenses were borne by the petitioner’s parents, and they wished to maintain harmony as residents of the same neighborhood.

The petitioner, aged 22, had no prior criminal record and expressed remorse.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash an FIR involving a non-compoundable offence under Section 307 IPC based on a private settlement between the parties.

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), regarding the High Court's inherent powers to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the principle established in Narinder Singh Ors. vs. State of Punjab Anr. (2014), which allows quashing non-compoundable offences if continuing the proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose.

Further, it applied the precedent from Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P. (2025), which held that settlement in attempted murder cases justifies quashing if proceeding further would be futile.

The Court acknowledged the gravity of Section 307 IPC allegations but emphasized that the power to quash must be exercised based on the specific facts of the case.

The Court reasoned that because the petitioner is young (22 years old) with clean antecedents and the parties are neighbors who have resolved their disputes to maintain future peace, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be redundant.

The Court noted that the injured party and complainant explicitly withdrew their grievances, meaning there was no likelihood of conviction.

Consequently, the Court found that the "ends of justice" would be better served by honoring the settlement rather than pursuing a futile trial.

It held that while the offence is grave, the settlement, the petitioner’s age, and the lack of past criminal history justified the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

The quashing was made subject to the petitioner depositing a cost of Rs. 20,000/- with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks and submitting proof of deposit and the original compromise deed to the Trial Court.