Attempt to murder charge can't be quashed only on ground that parties have compromised: Delhi High Court

The offence of attempt to murder is a heinous offence that cannot be quashed on the ground that the parties have come to a compromise, the Delhi High Court held recently [Mukhtiyaar Ali & Ors v. State of NCT Delhi & Ors]..Justice Subramonium Prasad passed an order to this effect in a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).“An offence under Section 307 IPC will fall under the category of heinous offence, and therefore, has to be treated as a crime against the society and not against the individual alone and the proceedings under Section 307 IPC cannot be quashed only on the ground that the parties have resolved the entire disputes amongst themselves,” the Court stated in its order..In August 2020, the police learnt that a man named Imran had been physically assaulted and was hospitalised. Three persons including the petitioner were accused of being part of the crime.Though the police’s investigation culminated in a chargesheet, the accused and the victim’s family were stated to have reached a settlement, according to which the accused were to compensate the victim with ₹3 lakh. Out of the total, ₹1 lakh had already been paid to the victim at the time of signing the settlement agreement..Counsel for the petitioner stated that the parties in the case resided in the same area and were distantly related to each other. The victim, he said, was attacked only with a kitchen knife and now entered into a compromise. It was also contended that in order to ensure that both sides lived peacefully, the FIR ought to be quashed.The State’s prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that the victim had been stabbed twice in his abdomen. She urged the Court not to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Prosecute (CrPC) for quashing offences that were heinous in nature.It came on record that there was a conflict of opinions in the Supreme Court on whether an offence under Section 307 IPC could be quashed by the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC.The Supreme Court had in State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat held that an offence under Section 307 IPC is a serious offence and ordinarily should not be quashed by the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes.In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, in the same year, the Supreme Court after noticing the judgment in Kewat, quashed the proceedings under Section 307 IPC.The matter was then referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court in State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, and the issue was resolved.“Considering the parameters laid down by the larger bench of the Supreme Court, the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, has held that an offence under Section 307 IPC will fall under the category of heinous offence, and therefore, has to be treated as a crime against the society and not against the individual alone,” observed the Court.It emphasised that the parameters laid down in Laxmi Narayan stated that the powers conferred on the High Court under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised keeping in mind the injuries sustained, whether such injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body, the nature of weapons used, etc..The present case, the Court noted, was not an ordinary fight between the neighbours. “The petitioners have to thank themselves that they are not facing trial in a case of murder because in ordinary circumstances the injuries inflicted by the petitioners were sufficient to cause death,” the order highlighted.According to the material on record, the victim was stated to have undergone a surgery besides being kept in a surgical Intensive Care Unit. The Court, therefore, said, “The victim has been attacked with a dangerous weapon, i.e., a knife. As stated above, injuries are such which would have caused death in the ordinary circumstances.”Advocate Rishipal Singh represented the petitioner whereas Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Chauhan appeared for the State. .[Read Order]