S.482 CrPC| Mere Incorporation Of S.307 IPC In FIR/Chargesheet Not Ground To Reject Compromise, Nature Of Injury Relevant Factor: J&K&L High Court

Justice M A Chowdhary observed that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not the Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties, the bench underscored.

The bench further expounded that though accusation of offence under Section 307 IPC is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well.

The remarks were made while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner challenged two cross FIRs for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 392, 506, 323, 447, 307.

The parties earlier filed petitions against each other seeking quashment of the aforesaid impugned FIRs. However, during the pendency of the petitions the parties entered into compromise after which they unanimously decided to put the entire controversy to rest.

Counsel for the petitioner while relying on the Supreme Court judgement in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) prayed that the Court should invoke its powers under Section 482 and accordingly quash the FIR keeping in view the compromise arrived between the parties.

Contesting the plea, the respondent-UT administration argued that since the petitioners are accused of offence under Section 307 IPC and therefore ordinarily should not be quashed by the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes.

On perusal of FIR, Justice Chowdhary observed that the complainant had alleged that he was assaulted ruthlessly by the accused, however, he was saved by his employees and he did not state anything about any injury on his person. There was also delay of about two weeks in lodging FIR and the offences punishable under Sections 307, 506, 427, 34 IPC were added later, the court noted.

"It appears that the complainant had not received any injury on any vital part of his body so as to constitute attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 IPC, otherwise he could have mentioned this fact, in his statement given to the police at the time of lodging of FIR, that too after two weeks of the alleged occurrence. In such a situation there cannot be any chance of conviction under Section 307 IPC, even after trial before the court", said the court.

"Admitted position of the case is that both the parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet" said the court adding" In such a scenario, this Court is under obligation to give its imprimatur to such a settlement".

Accordingly the bench allowed the petition and quashed the FIR's and the consequent proceedings emanating from them.

Case Title : Sheikh Feroz Ahmad Vs UT of J&K

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 214

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment