Uttarakhand High Court holds that proceedings under Section 307 IPC, although non-compoundable, can be quashed where parties have settled and are living harmoniously; judgment allows for real and substantial justice using inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS. Affirms that practical justice may sometimes warrant quashing even in serious offences when private parties urge, setting a persuasive example for similar applications.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | C528/1793/2025 of SADDAM HUSSAIN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010158652025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive for similar cases in Uttarakhand and other High Courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Procedure under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) |
| Questions of Law | Whether proceedings under Section 307 IPC (non-compoundable) can be quashed on the basis of settlement |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court found that despite the non-compoundable nature of Section 307 IPC, proceedings can be quashed in exercise of inherent powers if parties have resolved their disputes, are living peacefully, and continuation would constitute a denial of justice. The use of such inherent jurisdiction is warranted to do real and substantial justice between parties. The opposition from the State is not decisive when private disputes are fully resolved and parties themselves urge for quashing. The settlement was voluntary, without pressure, and parties filed requisite affidavits and compounding application. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
FIR alleged that applicant hit the informant’s brother’s motorcycle, causing injury and property damage; after the dispute, parties settled all issues, filed a compounding application, and were living peacefully together; opposition to quashing raised by State. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts in Uttarakhand (as persuasive authority within the State) |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and future benches considering quashing of non-compoundable offences where settlement is reached |
| Overrules | None specified |
| Distinguishes | None specified |
| Follows | None expressly cited or followed in record |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Uttarakhand High Court has reaffirmed that proceedings under Section 307 IPC may be quashed if parties reach a full, voluntary settlement and request quashing, even though the offence is non-compoundable.
- State opposition to quashing is not decisive when private parties have resolved all issues and are living harmoniously.
- The Court will exercise its inherent powers to do complete and substantial justice, especially where continuing the prosecution would result in injustice to parties who have amicably resolved their dispute.
- Lawyers should rely on this judgment as persuasive authority in appropriate quashing applications involving settlement, including for serious offences under Section 307 IPC.
- The shift to Section 528 BNSS (replacing Section 482 CrPC) for inherent powers is noted in the legal process.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first records the facts: an FIR was lodged alleging injury and property damage caused by the applicant, and criminal proceedings were pending under Sections 307, 325, 427, and 506 IPC.
- It acknowledges the settlement reached voluntarily between the applicant and the complainant/injured, recorded by their presence, affidavits, and an explicit compounding application.
- The Court notes the State’s objection on grounds that Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable.
- However, the Court reasons that where parties are living peacefully and have resolved all disputes, forcing the prosecution to continue would amount to a denial of justice.
- The Court invokes its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, emphasizing that it must do “real and substantial justice” even in cases involving serious, non-compoundable offences if the facts warrant.
- Finally, balancing the above, the entire criminal proceedings are quashed to effectuate practical justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Parties have amicably settled all disputes, including the present one.
- Settlement was arrived at freely and voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion.
- Parties now live peacefully and in harmony.
- Requested quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Respondent (State)
- Strongly opposed quashing.
- Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable; proceedings under such offences should not be quashed merely on settlement.
Respondent (Complainant / Injured Parties)
- Supported the petitioner’s request.
- Affirmed the dispute was resolved without any outside pressure.
- Expressly requested quashing of proceedings to maintain peace and harmony.
Factual Background
The applicant was accused, via FIR dated 23.04.2018, of striking the informant’s brother’s motorcycle with his own vehicle on 21.04.2018, which resulted in injuries to the informant’s brother and damage to the motorcycle. Criminal proceedings were initiated under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 325, 427, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the trial, the parties reached a mutual settlement, resolved all disputes, and confirmed their voluntary decision in court through affidavits and a compounding application.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to the former Section 482 CrPC.
- No new interpretations or reading down of substantive or procedural provisions were undertaken.
- The non-compoundable nature of Section 307 IPC was acknowledged but not treated as an absolute bar to quashing in appropriate, exceptional cases where justice so requires.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment records the parties’ personal appearance and filing of affidavits and compounding application as evidence of voluntary settlement.
- Amended memo and application to record the settlement details were allowed and taken on record.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and builds upon existing precedents that allow quashing of non-compoundable offences in rare and appropriate cases where settlement is reached and justice requires.