AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
The application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No. 920/2025 dated 06.12.2025 registered with Police Station, Kalamna, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 as well as Charge-sheet and consequent proceedings bearing Sessions Case No. 261/2026 pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on the ground of settlement.
The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that the applicant is the husband of non-applicant no.2/victim. The complainant is the mother of non-applicant no.2. The complainant lodged missing report with Police Station, Kalamna, Nagpur alleging that on 02.12.2025, non-applicant no.2 left her matrimonial home on account of quarrel with the applicant without intimating anybody. On 06.12.2025, since non-applicant no.2 returned home, the complainant brought her to Kalamna Police Station where the applicant was also called. The applicant and non-applicant no.2 were counselled by the police, where the applicant stated that he will leave non-applicant no.2. Thereafter, non-applicant no.2 refused to accompany him. Since, the missing report was not against anyone specific, the same was closed. Thereafter, when the complainant and non-applicant no.2 were proceeding towards Dipti Signal at about 06:30 pm, the applicant came towards their auto from behind and stopped the auto near Chikhali chowk. He sat besides non-applicant no.2 in the auto and assaulted non-applicant no.2 on hands, thigh and back by means of knife with an intention to kill her. On the basis of above said report, the FIR came to be registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offences.
Heard Mr. Sunil Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. H. D. Futane, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.1/State and Mr. Om Jibhakate, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2/victim.
This application has been filed for quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings on the ground of settlement. Non-applicant no.2 appeared through her counsel. Since, the report was lodged by the mother of non-applicant no.2, she is also personally present along with non-applicant no.2. They have been duly identified by the counsel for non-applicant no.2. The complainant filed across the bar an affidavit contending that the matter has been amicably settled between the applicant, non-applicant no.2 and herself. It is also stated that non-applicant no.2 is intending to reside with the applicant. Therefore, non-applicant no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant. The complainant has further stated in the affidavit that she has no objection if the FIR and consequent proceedings initiated against the applicant are quashed and set aside.
It is to be noted here that the applicant is charged for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the BNS apart from other offence and this offence is of a serious nature. The applicant has attempted to kill non-applicant no.2. Moreover, the offence is non-compoundable in nature.
With regards to the compoundability of offence, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed that “power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution”.
It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688.
15.Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1.That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2.Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
15.3.Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4.Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5[Ed.: Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3-4-2019.] . While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.”
No doubt, in serious offence like Section 109(1) of the BNS, care has to be taken and only when attending circumstances are made out the offence should be quashed on account of the settlement. Only then in such cases, the judicial discretion for exercising the inherent power of the Court can be exercised. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in a similarly placed case of Bharat Pathania Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 12798/2025, wherein the Supreme Court quashed serious criminal charges against the appellant, prioritizing family welfare and stability, however imposed a strict undertaking with cautioning consequences of breach. Thus, what is deduced from the aforesaid authorities is that quashing of the FIR in a serious crime like Section 109(1) of the BNS (old Sec. 307 of the IPC), exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be done only after investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed and if lawful resolution ensures the welfare of the family.
In the present case, an affidavit is filed by the complainant who is the mother of non-applicant no.2/victim contending that the matter has been amicably settled between the applicant and herself. The investigation is already completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The incident in question had occurred out of matrimonial discord. Non-applicant no.2 submitted that she intend to reside with the applicant. Likewise, the complainant also stated the same by way of an affidavit. Perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the injury was caused on the hand, thigh and back of non-applicant no.2. The injury report shows that the injuries are only deep muscle injuries. The injuries are not on the vital part of the body. This fact, along with the fact that the applicant and non-applicant no.2 is a married couple and wants to settle the dispute, indicates an attempt to restore their marital bond.
In such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings may not advance the ends of justice and welfare of non-applicant no.2. Rather, closing the proceedings will serve both individual and social interests. The continuation of the proceedings will not only be hindrance in leading happy marital life by the couple, especially by non-applicant no.2, but will be a futile exercise.
In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, a case is made out for exercising inherent power of the Court under Section 528 of the BNS (Old Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.) to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings against the applicant. Therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, this order :
The Criminal Application is allowed.
Crime No. 920/2025 dated 06.12.2025 registered with Police Station, Kalamna, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 as well as Charge-sheet and consequent proceedings bearing Sessions Case No. 261/2026 pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, against the applicant are quashed and set aside.
The application stands disposed of.