The court affirms that amicable settlements in disputes can preclude the continuation of criminal proceedings if both parties agree.

6 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Madhav Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Halai P.S. Case No. 78/2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 76, 303(2)

and 3(5) of the BNS .

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the accused persons named therein including the petitioner assaulted the informant and her family members, causing injuries.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has clean antecedent. The informant is co-villager of the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner has instructed him that to buy peace of mind, he wants to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court by way of mediation, in view of the fact that the incident took place due to land dispute. He informs that except Section 303 of BNS , all the Sections are bailable.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside the court, considering the nature of allegations made in FIR.

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 18.02.2026.

7. Heard the parties

8. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, I have also perused the allegation made in the FIR from which, it appears that there is a dispute between the parties and in such circumstances, 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 & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 , in para-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 recalled that, at the outset, after investigation, the police actually closed the case in its final report of 07.09.1991. It was the trial Court, which by its order of 05.09.1992, refused to accept the same