Uttarakhand HC Quashes Attempt-to-Murder Case Against 10 After Voluntary Settlement In Property Dispute

The applicants challenged the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order and ensuing criminal proceedings arising from an FIR alleging that they and others fired shots, forcibly entered the complainant’s home, assaulted family members, took cash and jewellery, and issued threats.

The case included charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 384, 449, 504 and 506 IPC.

The applicants and complainant, who lived in the same locality, said the dispute arose from a property-related disagreement and had been amicably settled.

The complainant confirmed the settlement before the Court and stated that he did not wish to pursue the prosecution.

The State opposed quashing on the ground that the offences were non-compoundable.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; that jurisdiction is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences under Section 320 CrPC.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed where a genuine and voluntary settlement resolves a predominantly private or personal dispute, subject to consideration of the offences’ nature and gravity and their impact on society.

A compromise alone does not justify quashing serious offences.

The Court found that the dispute arose from a property-related conflict between parties from the same locality and that their settlement, supported by affidavits and confirmed by the complainant in Court, was voluntary and genuine.

Although the allegations included serious offences under Sections 307, 384 and 449 IPC, the Court considered the overall circumstances and concluded that, in this case, continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. It therefore found that quashing would secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

It quashed the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order and consequential proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2023 qua the applicants; the C-528 application was allowed accordingly.