Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two cross criminal writ petitions filed before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in both petitions sought quashing of first information reports (FIRs) registered against them on the ground that the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement. The FIRs were cross complaints arising out of the same incident. Criminal Writ Petition No.2567 of 2016 challenged FIR CR No.267 of 2016 registered at Kurla Police Station on 15 July 2016 at the instance of Zia-Ul-Haque Nizamuddin Ansari against Shahnawaz Nurul Hassan Khan and others for offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 149, 324, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The brief facts alleged in that FIR were that on 5 July 2016, the complainant's elder brother Azharuddin Ansari was assaulted by the accused at their shop premises because he had refused to pay extortion money. The complainant and his family members went to rescue him and were also assaulted with weapons like iron rods and knives, causing injuries. Criminal Writ Petition No.2681 of 2016 challenged FIR CR No.268 of 2016 registered at the same police station on the same date at the instance of Shahnawaz Noor Hassan Khan against Ziyaulhaque Nizamuddin Ansari and others for similar offences under the IPC. The allegations in that FIR were that on the same day, the complainant Shahnawaz was assaulted by the accused persons with weapons. The legal issue before the court was whether FIRs involving non-compoundable offences, particularly Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), could be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The petitioners argued that the dispute was personal in nature and the parties had settled their differences, and therefore continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The State opposed the quashing, submitting that Section 307 IPC is a serious offence and cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise. The court analyzed the facts and noted that the injuries were not grievous and the dispute arose from a trivial issue. The court relied on the principle that where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and the parties have genuinely settled, the High Court can quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences to secure the ends of justice. The court held that since the parties had amicably settled the matter and the chances of conviction were bleak, continuing the proceedings would be futile. Accordingly, the court quashed both FIRs and all proceedings arising therefrom. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justice Naresh H. Patil and Justice Prakash D. Naik on 25 August 2016.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Compromise in Non-Compoundable Offences - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - Petitioners sought quashing of FIRs registered for offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 149, 324, 307 IPC on ground of amicable settlement - Court held that since the dispute was personal and parties had settled, continuation of proceedings would be futile and quashed the FIRs in exercise of inherent powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India (Paras 1-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether FIRs registered for non-compoundable offences under Sections 307, 324, 143, 144, 147, 149 IPC can be quashed on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties.
Final Decision
Both criminal writ petitions are allowed. FIR CR No.267 of 2016 registered with Kurla Police Station and FIR CR No.268 of 2016 registered with Kurla Police Station, and all proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR on settlement
- Non-compoundable offences
- Compromise in criminal cases
- Section 307 IPC quashing
- Writ jurisdiction Article 226
