FIR mentioning S.307 IPC Quashed After 30 Years Due to Settlement and Demise of Complainant: Supreme Court - 2025-03-20

Supreme Court Quashes 30-Year-Old FIR in Attempted Murder Case After Complainant's Demise and Settlement

New Delhi - In a significant ruling highlighting the principle of amicable resolution and the futility of prolonged legal battles, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a 30-year-old First Information Report (FIR) in a case involving charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempted murder. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices [Assuming Justices AHA Sanullah Naziri and J.K. Maheshwari based on the judgment content - Please verify and replace if actual names are different], underscores the Court's willingness to exercise its inherent powers to bring closure to protracted cases, especially when circumstances have significantly altered over time.

Case Background: A Three-Decade Legal Pendency

The case originated from an FIR No. 123/1991, lodged at Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi, by one Mohan Lal against the appellant, Vivek Sharma , and his brother. The complainant alleged that on April 15, 1991, the appellant and his brother assaulted him with a knife, inflicting injuries. Following investigations, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC.

The appellant initially approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the FIR, but his petition was dismissed. Subsequently, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments and Observations

Counsel for the appellant argued that the incident dated back to 1991, and the original complainant, Mohan Lal , had passed away. Furthermore, they highlighted the absence of eyewitnesses and expressed the appellant's willingness to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased.

The respondent's counsel opposed the appeal, asserting the seriousness of the offences and arguing against granting relief to the appellant.

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the case records, noted the undisputed facts: the considerable passage of time since the incident (over three decades), the demise of the injured party, and the lack of eyewitnesses. Crucially, the Court acknowledged the appellant's offer to provide compensation to the deceased's legal heirs.

Reliance on Precedent: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

The judgment heavily relied on the precedent set in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. In Gian Singh , the Supreme Court had affirmed the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, even in non-compoundable offences. This power can be exercised if the parties have amicably settled the dispute, and the nature of the offence is primarily private or civil, lacking a significant societal impact.

The Court reiterated the principle established in Gian Singh , stating:

> "In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court has held that the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the offence is primarily private or civil in nature and does not have serious impact on the society."

Decision and Implications

Taking into account the age of the case, the changed circumstances due to the complainant's death, and the offer of settlement, the Supreme Court concluded that prolonging the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. FIR No. 123/1991 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's pragmatic approach in dealing with long-pending cases, particularly where personal disputes have been resolved or where the passage of time has rendered prosecution futile. It underscores the importance of amicable settlements in certain criminal matters and the Court's willingness to prioritize closure and justice in the broader context of changed realities.