Section 307 IPC Proceedings Quashable Under Inherent Powers if Dispute is Private and Settlement Renders Conviction Remote

The petitioner filed this criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings and the cognizance order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the CJM, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case no. 283 of 2017.

The case involved allegations under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

During the pendency of the case, the petitioner and the informant (Opposite Party No. 2) filed a joint interlocutory application stating that they had settled the dispute outside of court with the help of well-wishers.

Both parties submitted that the case arose from a private dispute and a confusion regarding the petitioner’s identity, asserting that an offence under Section 307 was not actually made out.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences like Section 307 IPC on the basis of a private compromise.

2. Whether the continuation of the present criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of law in light of the settlement.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court.

Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab Another (2014) 6 SCC 466, which mandates that while Section 307 IPC is a serious offence, the High Court may quash proceedings if the incorporation of the section is superficial, the dispute is private/civil in nature, and the chance of conviction is remote due to a settlement.

The court examined the record and noted that the dispute was essentially private and lacked involvements of public policy.

Although Section 307 IPC was invoked, the court observed that certain "exaggerations" were made in the FIR to heighten the seriousness of the case.

Applying the Narinder Singh framework, the court found that since the parties had reached a full settlement, the possibility of conviction was "remote and bleak".

The court reasoned that requiring the petitioner to face trial despite the victim's refusal to proceed would result in "great oppression and prejudice" and constitute an "extreme injustice".

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the cognizance order dated 13.08.2021 in Deoghar Town P.S. Case no. 283 of 2017. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.