Allahabad High Court clarifies that in private disputes, even proceedings involving Section 307 IPC may be quashed on the basis of compromise if no serious or dangerous injury is found and compromise has been duly verified. The decision affirms and applies existing precedent, emphasizing discretionary use of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, and provides binding authority within Uttar Pradesh for future similar cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | NA528/22276/2025 of SANDEEP AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS |
| CNR | UPHC013031592025 |
| Date of Registration | 21-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Judgment Author | Raj Beer Singh |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding within territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether criminal proceedings under Section 307 IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise if the injured did not sustain serious injury? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
In appropriate cases, criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise under inherent powers of Section 528 BNSS. Though Section 307 IPC is generally considered serious and not compoundable, in cases where no serious or dangerous injury is found and both sides have settled the matter, the court may quash proceedings. The fact that a charge-sheet is submitted under Section 307 IPC is not decisive if the other circumstances justify quashing and there is no adverse societal impact. Compromise verified by the trial court and absence of criminal antecedents support quashing. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Both parties lodged cases against each other over a private dispute which led to prosecution under Sections 307, 436 IPC. The injured did not suffer serious injury, and no supplementary report shows serious or dangerous injury. A compromise was reached and verified before the trial court. Both sides requested quashing of the proceedings; the State did not object. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and, if cited, before the Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates and applies the principle that proceedings under Section 307 IPC may be quashed on compromise if:
- No serious or dangerous injury is evident,
- The offence arises out of a private dispute,
- Both parties have settled, and
- The compromise has been duly verified by the trial court.
- The pendency of a charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC does not prevent quashing if the factual context does not warrant a trial for such an offence.
- Absence of criminal antecedents and no societal impact are key factors supporting quashing.
- Lawyers may cite this precedent when seeking quashing in similar factual circumstances where serious hurt is not established.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recognized its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise in suitable cases.
- While normally proceedings under Section 307 IPC are not quashed due to the non-compoundable and serious nature of the offence, the Court distinguished this matter on facts:
- No serious or dangerous injury was sustained (no supplementary medical report to contrary).
- Both parties have lodged cases against each other, suggesting a private dispute.
- Compromise has been fully verified by the trial court, and the injured/informant do not wish to proceed.
- No evidence of criminal antecedents of applicants.
- The Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would not adversely impact society, justifying quashing in the interests of justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The dispute was due to a misconception and is of private nature.
- The parties have settled amicably; both informant and injured do not wish to proceed.
- No serious or dangerous injury was sustained; no supplementary medical evidence to the contrary.
- Both sides have filed cases against each other.
- Compromise has been verified by the trial court.
- Continued prosecution would serve no purpose.
Respondent (Opposite Party No. 2, 3, 4)
- Concurred with petitioners; parties have compromised.
- Informant and injured do not wish to proceed with the case.
- Requested quashing of proceedings in light of the settlement.
State
- No objection if the parties have settled and compromised the matter.
Factual Background
Both sides were involved in a private dispute that led to cases being filed by each against the other, resulting in prosecution under Sections 307 and 436 IPC at Police Station Linepar, District Firozabad. The incident did not result in any serious or dangerous injuries to the alleged victims—supported by lack of supplementary medical evidence. During pendency, the parties reached a compromise, which was duly verified by the trial court. All relevant parties (including the informant and injured) agreed not to pursue the matter further.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), confirming its inherent powers to quash proceedings in the interests of justice.
- Applied established legal standards for quashing proceedings on compromise even for serious, non-compoundable offences, subject to facts indicating absence of serious injury and private nature of the dispute.
- Section 307 IPC, while generally not compoundable, may be quashed when the factual context (including medical evidence and parties’ positions) does not support the grave charge.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies established principles for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, with fact-based distinction for Section 307 IPC.