Section 307 IPC proceedings may be quashed after compromise when evidence makes conviction remote.

The petitioner sought quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising from Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 218 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 732 of 2026, including the order dated 30 March 2026 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

The proceedings arose out of a dispute between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2.

During the pendency of the case, the parties filed separate affidavits stating that they had amicably settled the dispute, which was essentially private and civil in nature, with no element of public policy involved.

The State expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings.

It was submitted that the allegation under Section 307 IPC had been exaggerated and that the possibility of conviction had become remote following the compromise.

1. Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

2. Whether the presence of an allegation under Section 307 IPC barred quashing of the proceedings, or whether the Court could examine the nature of the dispute and the circumstances to determine whether the offence was genuinely heinous or had been invoked merely to give the case a serious complexion.

3. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite the complete settlement, would amount to an abuse of the process of law where the possibility of conviction was remote and bleak.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 CrPC, to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of court.

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court reiterated that the power to quash proceedings on the basis of compromise is distinct from the statutory power of compounding under Section 320 CrPC and may extend to non-compoundable offences, but must be exercised sparingly and with caution.

Proceedings involving heinous offences, serious mental depravity, or offences having a serious impact on society ordinarily should not be quashed merely because of a settlement; however, cases having an overwhelmingly civil or private character may be quashed where the parties have resolved their dispute and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak.

In relation to Section 307 IPC, Narinder Singh permits the High Court to examine whether the provision was substantively attracted by considering factors such as the nature and location of injuries, the weapon used, and the medical material, rather than treating the mere mention of Section 307 in the FIR as conclusive.

The Court found that the dispute was essentially private in character and did not involve a serious offence of mental depravity or an offence affecting public policy or society at large.

The parties had completely settled their dispute and supported the settlement through separate affidavits; the informant consented to the quashing and the State had no objection.

Applying the principles in Narinder Singh, the Court held that the allegation under Section 307 IPC did not, in the circumstances of the case, prevent quashing because the case was not treated as a genuinely heinous prosecution but as a private dispute in which the serious nature of the allegation had been exaggerated.

In view of the settlement, the likelihood of conviction was remote and bleak, while continuation of the prosecution would cause oppression, prejudice and injustice to the petitioner.

It quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner, the entire criminal proceedings arising from Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 218 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 732 of 2026, including the cognizance order dated 30 March 2026.

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