The court determines that inadequate evidence for serious charges allows for amicable settlement, emphasizing mediation and prior case resolutions.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sikta P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025 registered under Sections

191(2), 190, 126(2), 118, 115(2), 109(1), 352 of the BNS .

3. The prosecution's story in brief is that while informant was sitting outside his house, the petitioner along with other accused arrived with arms and started abusing and assaulting him. During the said alleged occurrence, he sustained injuries from a sharp weapon, after which he became unconscious. Upon hearing the commotion, the family members of the informant intervened and thereafter the accused fled from the spot.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that as per the allegation the informant sustained knife injury in his abdomen but no such injury has been found to be caused by knife, as would appear from the injury report as contained in Annexure – P2. There is case and counter case between the parties arising out of the same incidence. Learned counsel submitted that to buy peace of mind, petitioner wants to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside the court.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.

on 17.02.2026.

7. Heard the parties

8. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR, I am of the opinion that an opportunity is required to be given to the parties to settle their score amicably outside the Court.

9. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the observation made by the Apex Court recently in case of Naushey Ali (supra), in paragraph nos. 11 to 20, which are reproduced hereinafter:

“11. Before we apply this judgment to the facts, it will be worthwhile to recall the observations of Sikri, J. in Narinder Singh (supra):-

"26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well..."

(Emphasis supplied)

12. Coming back to Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court has held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet should not be the basis for adopting a hands-off approach. It has further held that it would be open for the court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is evidence to back it. It has been held that the courts may go by the nature of injuries sustained; as to whether the injuries are inflicted on the vital/ delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapon used. It has also been clarified that such an exercise would be permissible after investigation and filing of chargesheet/framing of charges or during the trial. [See 15.4 of Laxmi Narayan (supra)].

13. Coming to the fact