Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Naushey Ali and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025 [SLP Criminal No. 3432 of 2023]
Decided On : 11-02-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 109] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 359 and 528] – Attempt to murder – Compounding of offence – Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence – Even though compounding and quashing are conceptually different, merely because there is a settlement, for certain categories of offences proceedings will not be quashed – Crimes that have harmful effects on public and consist of wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society cannot be quashed, only because accused and victim have amicably settled the matter – However, mere mention of Section 307 IPC in FIR or charge-sheet should not be the basis for adopting a hands-off approach – It would be open for court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for sake of it or whether there is evidence to back it – Facts, assuming to be true, also do not make out a case of common object for appellants under Section 149 IPC insofar as offence of Section 307 is concerned – Police who investigated disbelieved entire story – No recoveries have been made of any pellets – Keeping in mind surrounding circumstances, nature of weapon and nature of injury, overt act attributed to appellants does not bring the case within four corners of Section 307 of IPC, either on a stand-alone basis or with aid of Section 149 of IPC – Impugned order set aside and criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 6, 7, 12, 14, 16, 19 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal calls in question the correctness of order dated 19.01.2023 in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By said order, High Court, by holding that a case involving allegation of Commission of offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 cannot be compounded, dismissed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of proceedings. Only question that arises for consideration is: Is the present case a fit case where proceeding could be quashed, particularly when Section 307 IPC has inter alia been invoked in the summons?
Findings of Court:
This is a fit case where proceedings in complaint case No. 8023 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 248 of 1991 pending in Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Moradabad should be quashed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - (!) (!) Quashing of offence or proceedings for settlement is not the same as compounding; compounding under Section 320 is different from quashing under Article 142/Section 482. - (!) (!) High Court may quash non-compoundable offences in appropriate private/settlement contexts, but not for all serious/public offences; category matters. - (!) (!) (!) Laxmi Narayan guidance: mere mention of Section 307 in FIR/charge-sheet not enough to block quashing; assess evidence, injuries, weapon, and whether settlement justifies ending proceedings. - (!) (!) (!) (!) Narinder Singh and Laxmi Narayan synthesis: for heinous/serious offences like 307/Arms Act, quashing usually not allowed; but in private, non-serious cases with settlement, may be allowed after investigation/charges. - (!) (!) Court will evaluate whether overt act fits Section 307; injuries and weapon type matter; not always satisfied on facts. - (!) (!) In present case, Court quashed proceedings despite Section 307 being invoked, finding it not to have public harm level; emphasis on ends of justice and amicable settlement. - (!) The High Court’s error corrected; quashing allowed where appropriate to end futile proceedings and restore peace. - (!) - (!) Ramgopal guidance: exercise caution; factors include nature of offence, injury, compromise voluntarily, and conduct of accused.
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated 19.01.2023 in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1315 of 2023 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the said order, the High Court, by holding that a case involving allegation of Commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) cannot be compounded, dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of proceedings. Five of the eight appellants before the High Court - Naushey Ali, Khushboo Ali, Khursheed, Raza Ali and Nanhe - are before this Court in Appeal. The other three have passed away.
3. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass:
(ii) With respect to an occurrence on 11.08.1991, it was the appellants’ party which first lodged Case Crime No. 248/91 on the said day itself against the respondent No. 2, his father and others for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 506, 323 and 504 of IPC.
(iii) On 27.08.1991, Case Crime No. 248-A/91 was registered by Abdul Lateef, on behalf of respondent No. 2, in FIR No. 141 of 1991. The sections, violations of which were alleged were, 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 506, 323 and 504 IPC. This FIR was registered against all eight persons, including the appellants.
(iv) The gravamen of the allegation was that the appellants’ party wanted to pass the irrigation water through the field of the complainant by forcibly digging the land. When it was resisted by the complainant party, the appellants’ party abused them in filthy language and assaulted Mahmood S/o Abdul Lateef with lathi and iron bars. When Mahmood ran to save his life, Abdul Waris (since deceased) opened fire from his rifle.
(v) According to the complainant, on hearing the sound, Munnan S/o Mangu and Vilayat S/o Inayat came and saved them. Thereafter, they reached the Police Station to lodge a report, when they found that the appellants’ party was already present at the Police Station. A complaint was lodged by Mahmood but the thumb impression on his behalf was put by his father Abdul Lateef.
(vi) On 07.09.1991, after investigation, the police filed a final report No. 50/91 stating that the complaint was a false complaint. It was recorded that during the course of investigation, from the statements of witnesses, it was found that the case has been falsely registered by the complainant as a counter blast to FIR No. 248/91 lodged by the appellants’ party.
(vii) However, on 05.09.1992, the police report was rejected by the VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, who summoned the appellants and the three others - Abdul Waris, Rasheed and Maseeta (all since deceased), for trial, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 325 and 323 of IPC and issued warrants.
(viii) Aggrieved, the appellants challenged the order dated 05.09.1992 of the trial Court before the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1318 of 1992, wherein an interim order was passed staying the order of 05.09.1992.
(ix) The criminal revision was ultimately dismissed on 03.04.2015 after it remained pending for nearly twenty-three years. It is the case of the appellants’ party that the dismissal of the criminal revision was not known to them till October, 2022, when they received summons from the trial Court.
(x) It appears that, in the meantime, due to the intervention of the elderly persons in the village, on 19.12.2022, a compromise was entered into between the injured Mahmood and the appellants.
(xi) Based on the compromise and affidavit of the injured Mahmood, the appellant and three others filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 1315 of 2023 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad praying for quashment of the entire proc
(1) Compounding of offence – Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence.(2) Mere mention of....
The distinction between compounding offences and quashing proceedings is crucial; quashing may be warranted even for non-compoundable offences if a settlement exists.
The court ruled that serious offences under IPC, such as Section 307, cannot be quashed based on compromise, emphasizing the distinction between quashing and compounding offences.
FIR under Section 307 IPC not quashable on compromise if charge-sheet evidences grievous life-endangering injuries from deadly weapons, establishing prima facie heinous offence against society.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principles for quashing criminal proceedings based on compromise, considering the nature of the offences, societal impact, and the possibility ....
Offences under Section 307 IPC are serious and heinous, lacking the possibility of being quashed based on private compromise. Hence, societal interest in prosecuting such crimes prevails.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code sparingly and with caution, especially for heinous and serious offences, and to consid....
The court emphasized the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence and the need to secure the ends of justice in exercising the inherent power for quashing the proceedings based on a compromise.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
