Supreme Court Clarifies Approach For Quash Proceedings Under Section 482 Cr.P.C

The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of quashing criminal proceedings in cases involving Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on compromise between parties in Naushey Ali & Ors Vs State of U.P. & Anr.

The appeal was made against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which dismissed an application seeking to quash proceedings related to offenses under Section 307 IPC, stating that such cases cannot be compounded. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, clarified the distinction between compounding an offense and quashing proceedings, and set aside the High Court’s order.

Background The case originated from a dispute between residents of the same village, Barwara Khas, District Moradabad, U.P.. Two cases were registered concerning an incident on August 11, 1991; the first by the appellants' party against respondent No. 2 and others, and the second by Abdul Lateef on behalf of respondent No. 2 against the appellants. The allegation was that the appellants' party tried to forcibly pass irrigation water through the complainant's field, leading to a violent confrontation.

Initially, the Police filed a final report stating the complaint was false but the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected this report and summoned the appellants for trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 325, and 323 of the IPC. A compromise was later reached between the injured party, Mahmood, and the appellants.

Difference Between Compounding and Quashing

The Supreme Court emphasized the difference between compounding an offense under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and quashing criminal proceedings by the High Court using its inherent powers.

As far the "Quashing of Proceedings" is concern, the Apex Court observed that even if offenses are not compoundable, criminal proceedings can be quashed to secure the ends of justice and restore peace, especially in cases with a predominant civil flavor arising from commercial, financial, or family disputes.

Supreme Court further held that the mere mention of Section 307 IPC (Section 109 BNS) does not or shall not automatically prevent a court from quashing proceedings, however, it is up to the Court to examine whether the inclusion of Section 307 IPC is justified based on the evidence and to what extent.

Since, the nature of Injuries and weapons used also may be considered, the Apex Court highlighted that the nature of injuries sustained, whether inflicted on vital body parts, and the type of weapon used are important factors in determining whether Section 307 IPC is appropriately invoked.

The Apex Court while citing its earlier judgement in case of Ramgopal vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Click to Download), emphasizing that the power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked beyond the scope of Section 320 CrPC, considering the nature and effect of the offense, the seriousness of the injury, the voluntary nature of the compromise, and the conduct of the accused.

Supreme Court thus considered the settlement between the parties, the initial closure report by the police, and the age of the case. It concluded that the injuries sustained did not justify the application of Section 307 IPC and that proceeding with the trial would be futile.

Coram: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V. N. Bhatti
Case: Naushey Ali & Ors vs State of U.P. & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 11-02-2025