Attempt To Murder Charge Cannot Be Quashed Merely On Settlement Between Parties If Prima Facie Possibility Of Conviction Is Strong: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen was hearing two petitions filed by a man accused of offences under Sections 324 and 307 of the IPC and under Sections 3(1) (s), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. The first petition was for quashing the FIR filed against him and the second petition was to quash the order of the Special Court that refused to release the car involved in the above crime.

The court was considering the factors under which a non-compoundable offence like Section 307 maybe compounded in accordance with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. 2019 (5) SCC 688 the court observed that the offence of attempt to murder falls under the category of heinous and serious offences and, hence, it is not to be treated as a crime against the individual alone but as a crime against the society. Offences like Section 307 of the IPC have a serious impact on the society and cannot be quashed in exercise of the powers under S.482 of the Cr.P.C, solely on the ground that the individuals have resolved the dispute amongst themselves, the court observed.

The counsels for the petitioner C P Udayabhanu and Navaneeth N Nath pressed for qaushment of the FIR and further proceedings based on the settlement between parties and for release of the vehicle involved in the crime.

However, the Public Prosecutor Sanal P Raj averred that the proceedings against the accused could not be quashed, despite the statement of the victim that he had no grievance against the accused, as the offences alleged were of a serious nature.

The Court noted that the Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan (supra) has carved out exceptions to quashing an FIR for an offence under Section 307. Quashment of an FIR involving an offence of Section 307 is permissible only after the evidence is collected and after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge framed and/or during trial. Such an FIR cannot be quashed when the matter is still under investigation, the court observed.

The court further observed that it even if investigation is concluded it needs to be further examined whether the incorporation of S.307 IPC in the FIR is for the sake of it or if there is sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to conviction. The court while examining whether the possibility of conviction is strong or bleak, can make a prima facie analysis based on medical records. This includes the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital parts of the body, nature of weapons used and so on.

The court observed that if on prima facie analysis by the court the chances of conviction under Section 307 are strong, it can refuse to quash the FIR despite settlement between parties. However, if the chances of conviction are low, the court may permit the quashing of the FIR as it could result in harmony between the parties.

In the present case the court observed that as the matter is still under investigation and since no final report has been filed, it is not a fit case for quashment. The court also observed that the allegations in the case is that the man after threatening the victim with his caste name, stabbed him causing serious injuries. The court examined prosecution records to note that the injuries sustained by the victim were of a very serious nature.

Due to the above facts and circumstances, the court refused to quash the FIR and dismissed the petition. The court also directed the accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer to facilitate proper investigation of the crime. The court also directed the investigation officer to arrest the accused if he failed to surrender within three days. With regard to the order of the special court that refused release of the car involved in the crime, the court remanded the matter back to the special court to be considered afresh.

Case Title: Sudheesh Babu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 63