Will just mentioning Section 307 of the IPC in criminal cases make a court take a ‘hands-off approach’ if the parties want to settle? The Supreme Court explains.

The Supreme Court clarified whether simply mentioning Section 307 of the IPC in criminal cases requires the Court to take a “hands-off approach” when parties seek a settlement. The Court also needed to establish its responsibilities and the criteria for deciding which settlements to accept or reject. In this case, the Court granted the appeal from the Appellants, overturning the Allahabad High Court’s decision under Section 482 of the CrPC. Justices KV Viswanathan and SVN Bhatti stated, “Based on the facts and circumstances, this crime does not have a significant harmful impact on the public or seriously threaten societal well-being. We emphasize that this conclusion is specific to the current case. We believe that continuing the trial, given that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably, would be pointless, and justice requires that the settlement be honored by dismissing the proceedings.”

AOR Anupam Mishra represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Garima Prashad represented the Respondents. The Appeal challenged the High Court’s ruling, which had declined to dismiss criminal proceedings in a 1991 case involving a settlement related to an alleged offence under Section 307 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court referenced its decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), clarifying that ending a criminal case due to an agreement between the offender and the victim is not the same as compounding an offense. These two actions are distinct and cannot be used interchangeably. The court’s authority to compound offenses under Section 320 is fundamentally different from the High Court’s ability to dismiss criminal proceedings based on its inherent powers. It further explained that when compounding offenses, a criminal court must follow the rules in Section 320, while the High Court’s decision to quash a case is based on the evidence available and whether it serves justice, even if it leads to an acquittal or dismissal. The Bench observed that after the investigation, the police closed the case in their final report in 1991. However, the trial court, in 1992, did not accept this and summoned the Appellants, as noted by the Bench.

The event occurred on August 11, 1991, which is about 33 and a half years ago. While the FIR mentions gunfire, it is clear that no one was injured. The accusation points to Abdul Waris as the shooter, but he has since passed away. Even if we accept the facts as true, they do not support a case of common intention for the appellants under Section 149 of the IPC regarding the offense under Section 307. The Court noted that considering the circumstances, the type of weapon, and the lack of injury, the actions attributed to the appellants do not fit within Section 307 of the IPC, whether viewed alone or with Section 149.

As a result, the Court stated that given the unique aspects of the case, acknowledging the settlement, and applying the law, this is a suitable situation to dismiss the ongoing proceedings from 1991. Therefore, the Supreme Court approved the appeal.

Cause Title: Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 182)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Anupam Mishra; Advocate Jenis V. Francis
Respondents: Senior Advocate Garima Prashad; AOR Sudeep Kumar; Advocates Manisha and Rupali