The Court emphasized the importance of resolving neighborhood disputes amicably and considered the nature of injuries in the context of criminal liability under IPC.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Madhav Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 303(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and

3(5) of the BNS .

3. The prosecution's story in brief is that when the informed returned home from Jaynagar and went to his land, he found that petitioners had allegedly opened a pathway through the portion of his land and when the informant had questioned the same, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons had assaulted the informant causing head injury.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that both the parties are next door neighbour and dispute, which primarily relates to allegation under Section 109 BNSS, can be resolved by way of amicable settlement 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 petitioners have 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 facts of the case, admittedly, there is a settlement between the parties. The case filed by the appellants' party which was prior in point of time and that too on the same day of occurrence, has been settled.

14. It should be recall