Section 307 proceedings may be quashed on settlement where injuries are minor and conviction prospects remote.

The petitions arose from cross-FIRs registered after a single incident on 5 November 2017.

In FIR No. 982/2017, Sanjay alleged that Suhail stabbed him behind the left shoulder; the medical record noted a deep incised wound measuring approximately 2 × 2 cm.

In FIR No. 980/2017, Suhail alleged that Sanjay stabbed him on the right side of the chest; the medical record noted a lacerated wound measuring 3 × 2 cm.

The parties executed separate settlement deeds on 16 April 2026 and agreed to quashing both FIRs.

The State opposed the petitions, citing the seriousness of the allegations under Section 307 IPC and the alleged use of a knife in a public place.

Whether the cross-FIRs alleging offences under Section 307 IPC could be quashed on the basis of the parties’ settlements, having regard to the injuries and circumstances of the incident.

Whether continuation of the prosecutions would serve a useful purpose in light of the passage of time, the limited progress of the cases, and the parties’ settlement.

Section 307 IPC concerns an offence of a serious nature and such offences are ordinarily treated as crimes against society, not merely against the individual; settlement alone therefore does not ordinarily warrant quashing.

However, under the High Court’s inherent quashing jurisdiction, the Court must assess the actual circumstances rather than rely solely on the inclusion of Section 307 IPC.

Relevant considerations include the nature and location of the injuries, the weapon used, the evidence supporting the charge, and the prospects of conviction.

Where a prima facie assessment indicates that conviction is remote or bleak and the settlement is complete, quashing may be appropriate.

The Court relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, as reproduced in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688.

It also referred to Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 182, and Ms. Priya Sahani @ Pooja v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2026:DHC:8696.

The Court treated the incident as a sudden quarrel between neighbours in which both sides were injured.

It noted that one injury was simple and the other was a single, small injury without danger to life or limb.

Applying the Narinder Singh factors, the Court concluded that the allegations and injuries did not establish a strong likelihood of conviction under Section 307 IPC.

It also considered that approximately nine years had passed with insubstantial progress in either case, and that continuing the prosecutions would serve no fruitful purpose and risk prolonging the parties’ hostility.

The relief was conditional on each petitioner depositing ₹5,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

The parties were also directed to maintain peace and not interfere with each other’s families.