LexNAUSHEY ALI & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 289 : 2025 INSC 182 Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025) 11 February 2025 [K.V. Viswanathan* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the present case is a fit case where proceedings could be quashed, particularly when Section 307, IPC inter alia was invoked and there was a settlement between the parties. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.307 – Complaint was filed against the appellants under various sections including s.307, IPC – However, parties later settled the dispute – High Court declined to quash the proceedings holding that a case involving allegation of offence u/s.307, IPC cannot be compounded – Interference with: Held: Impugned order set aside – High Court mixed up the concepts of compounding and powers of quashing – Further, mere mention of s.307 IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet does not preclude the Court from quashing the proceedings if there is a settlement – Court can examine as to whether incorporation of s.307, IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is evidence to back it going by the nature of injuries sustained; as to whether the injuries are inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapon used – In the present case, admittedly, there is a settlement between the parties – Furthermore, on facts, considering the injury, the nature of the weapon used and the overt act attributed to the appellants, no offence u/s.307, IPC was made out either on a stand-alone basis or with the aid of s.149 – As a matter of fact, the police had actually closed the case in its final report however, it was the trial Court which refused to accept the same and summoned the appellants – Present is a fit case where pending proceedings should be quashed – Proceedings quashed. [Paras 12, 14, 19, 23, 24] * Author 290 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing vis-à-vis compounding: Held: Compounding and quashing are conceptually different – However, merely because there is a settlement, for certain categories of offences proceedings will not be quashed because the crimes that have harmful effects on the public and consist of wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society cannot be quashed, only because the accused and the victim have amicably settled the matter – In the instant case, the nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury (fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger), the offence alleged, on facts, does not fall in that category of cases where the court should deny relief in the event of a settlement – On facts, considering all the circumstances, the crime is not such which has a harmful effect on the public and has the effect of seriously threatening the well-being of the society – Proceeding with the trial, when parties have amicably resolved the dispute is futile and would be a grave abuse of process – Thus, settlement ought to be given effect to by quashing the proceedings – Proceedings quashed. [Para 20] Case Law Cited Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012] 8 SCR 753 : (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [2019] 2 SCR 864 : (2019) 5 SCC 688; Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [2014] 4 SCR 1012 : (2014) 6 SCC 466; Ramgopal v. State of M.P. [2021] 6 SCR 249 : (2022) 14 SCC 531 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 307 of Penal Code, 1860; Quashment of Proceedings; Quashing; Settlement; Compromise; Compounding of offence; Common Object; General Allegation; Role not specific; Overt Act; Dispute settled; Harmful effect on the public; Threatening the well-being of the society; Abuse of process; Nature of the weapon; Nature of the injury. [2025] 3 S.C.R. 291 Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 1315 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Anupam Mishra, Jenis V Francis, Advs. for the Appellants. Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G., Sudeep Kumar, Ms. Manisha, Ms. Rupali, Harikumar V., Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.