Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Anil Bhimrao Sapate and others, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 133 of 2020 registered at Kamti Police Station and the consequent charge-sheet in R.C.C. No. 258 of 2020, as well as the proceedings in S.C. No. 143 of 2020 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The incident occurred on 4 August 2020 at about 10:15 p.m., when the informant and his father were assaulted with iron rods, knives, and wooden logs by the petitioners and other co-accused, resulting in bleeding injuries. The parties are related by marriage: the wife of respondent No.2's brother is the cousin of petitioner No.1, and petitioner No.1's mother is the maternal cousin of respondent No.2's mother. The dispute arose from a boundary dispute over agricultural lands. Subsequently, elders in the community facilitated an amicable settlement between the parties, and the complainants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) expressed their desire not to prosecute the petitioners. The petitioners therefore sought quashing by consent. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that the offence under Section 307 IPC is serious and non-compoundable, and that the trial had already commenced with three panch witnesses examined. Reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh & Ors., where the Supreme Court refused to quash proceedings for similar offences. The Court, however, noted that the parties are closely related and the dispute was private in nature. It held that the High Court's inherent power under Article 226 is not constrained by the non-compoundable nature of the offence, and that the settlement was genuine and voluntary. The Court distinguished Kalyan Singh on facts. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the FIR, charge-sheet, and all proceedings in S.C. No. 143 of 2020 were quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Compromise in Non-Compoundable Offences - Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Article 226 Constitution of India - Petition seeking quashing of FIR and charge-sheet for offences under Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 IPC based on amicable settlement between parties who are relatives - Court allowed quashing considering the family relationship, settlement of boundary dispute, and no public interest involved - Held that the High Court can quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is private and settlement is genuine (Paras 1-6). B) Indian Penal Code - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Quashing of Proceedings - Compromise - Offence under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable but can be quashed if the dispute is personal and settlement is voluntary - Court distinguished State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh as the facts therein involved different circumstances - Held that the power under Article 226 is not fettered by the non-compoundable nature of the offence (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings for offences under Section 307 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties, given the serious nature of the offence and the stage of trial.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The FIR in C.R. No. 133 of 2020 registered with Kamti Police Station, the charge-sheet in R.C.C. No. 258 of 2020, and the proceedings in S.C. No. 143 of 2020 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur are quashed.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- Compromise in non-compoundable offences
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- Article 226 Constitution
- Inherent powers of High Court
