In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that the mere mention of Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder) in an FIR does not automatically bar courts from quashing criminal proceedings if the circumstances, evidence, and nature of the offence do not justify a trial.
The ruling came in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3432 of 2023, where the Supreme Court set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash a 33-year-old criminal case despite a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The verdict was delivered by Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, who emphasized that blindly refusing to quash cases based on the presence of Section 307 IPC in an FIR defeats the ends of justice.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a long-pending criminal dispute dating back to August 11, 1991, in Barwara Khas village, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh. The dispute arose over irrigation water rights, leading to a violent altercation between two parties.
– First FIR: On August 11, 1991, the appellants (Naushey Ali & Others) lodged an FIR against the complainant (Mahmood) and his father under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 506, 323, and 504 IPC.
– Counter FIR: On August 27, 1991, Mahmood’s father, Abdul Lateef, filed a counter-FIR (Case Crime No. 248-A/91), accusing eight persons, including the appellants, of identical offences.
Nature of the Allegations
According to Mahmood, the accused attempted to forcibly dig through his land to channel irrigation water. When opposed, they verbally abused him and attacked him with lathis and iron rods. The FIR also alleged that one Abdul Waris (since deceased) opened fire with a rifle, although no bullet injuries were reported.
– The police conducted an investigation and, on September 7, 1991, filed a final closure report, stating that the allegations were false and made as a counterblast to the first FIR.
– However, the trial court rejected the closure report in 1992 and summoned the accused for trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 325, and 323 IPC.
Legal Complications & Prolonged Delay
The case dragged on for over three decades, leading to severe delays:
– The Allahabad High Court granted an interim stay in 1992, but the criminal revision remained pending for 23 years before being dismissed in 2015.
– The accused received fresh summons from the trial court in 2022, unaware that their case had been revived.
– By December 2022, both parties reached an amicable settlement, facilitated by village elders, and the complainant submitted an affidavit supporting quashing the case.
– The Allahabad High Court rejected their plea, stating that Section 307 IPC offences cannot be compounded.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
1. Distinction Between “Compounding” and “Quashing” of Offences
The Supreme Court corrected the High Court’s misinterpretation, emphasizing that compounding an offence under Section 320 CrPC is different from quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
“Mere mention of Section 307 IPC in an FIR does not prevent the High Court from quashing proceedings if the evidence does not support such a charge.”
The bench cited Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, which laid down that serious but private disputes can be quashed in the interest of justice.
2. Section 307 IPC Doesn’t Automatically Bar Quashing
The court referred to State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, stating:
“Not every case invoking Section 307 IPC must result in an automatic denial of relief. The court must examine the facts, injuries, and nature of the offence before deciding whether to quash proceedings.”
– No life-threatening injury: The complainant only suffered a fracture of the left ring finger, which was not a fatal injury.
– No evidence of intent to kill: There was no serious bodily harm or evidence of lethal force.
– Firing allegations were against a deceased person: The only person accused of using a firearm (Abdul Waris) had passed away, meaning the case against the remaining accused was weak.
3. Extraordinary Delay & Abuse of Process
The court noted that forcing a trial after 33 years, especially when the police initially found the case to be false, would be an abuse of process.
Citing Ramgopal v. State of M.P. (2022) 14 SCC 531, the court held that prolonging trials in settled matters serves no purpose and contradicts the interests of justice.
Final Judgment: Supreme Court Quashes the Case
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending in Complaint Case No. 8023 of 2015 (arising from Case Crime No. 248 of 1991) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.
“Proceeding with this trial would be futile and a grave abuse of process. Courts should not adopt a rigid stance merely due to the presence of Section 307 IPC in an FIR.” – Supreme Court
