Attempt To Murder Cases Can Be Quashed Based On Settlement After Filing Of Final Report Depending On Nature Of Injuries: Kerala HC Reiterates
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that cases alleging an attempt of murder can be quashed after settlement between the complaint and the accused after the filing of final report by the police. While taking a call on whether to effect the settlement, Courts must examine the nature of injuries sustained and the part of the body where they were inflicted, among other things.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash the final report and all criminal proceedings before the Sessions Court in a case where the accused had stabbed and allegedly attempted to murder the complainant, who was in a love affair with the accused. Considering the settlement and the fact that the complainant had not sustained injuries on a vital or delicate part, the Court said the offence under Section 307 (Attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was prima facie not substantiated.
Citing precedents, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice A Badharudeen held, [S]ettlement of cases involving offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC also can be considered after filing Final Report and not before filing Final Report, if the prosecution materials do not suggest commission of the said offence and also in consideration of the nature of injuries sustained."
Advocate K. Reeha Khader appeared for the Petitioner and Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George appeared for the Respondents.
Clarifying the legal position on the subject, it said, "[T]he courts, while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the Court should go by the nature of injuries sustained, the part of the body where the injuries were inflicted with specific attention to see whether the injuries caused are on the vital or delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapons used, etc."
If the Court finds that there is a "strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties."
"On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the Court forms an opinion that offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties," the Court said.
The Court cited the Supreme Court's Judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors (2019) which, after stating that Section 307 would fall within the category heinous and serious offences and, therefore, is to be treated as crime against the society, said it would be open to the High Court to examine the nature and place of injuries sustained, the weapon used, and so on.
"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," the apex Court said in Laxmi Narayan's case.
The case of the prosecution was that the accused, who was in a love affair with the de facto complainant wrongly restrained and assaulted the complainant with the intention to commit murder when the relationship collapsed. The specific allegation was that the accused stabbed the complainant using a knife saying “I will kill you” and caused injury to her left shoulder. On this premise, the prosecution alleged the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of the IPC.
The Petitioner submitted that that the matter has been amicably settled and the complainant filed an affidavit stating that that she has no intention to proceed further in this matter. The public prosecutor also submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties, but opposed the opposed quashing on the premise of settlement, since an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is also involved in this matter.
Upon perusing the medical records, and specifically the wound certificate, the Court concluded that the complaint had not sustained any injuries on a vital or delicate part of her body. "Since no injuries sustained to the de facto complainant on any vital or delicate parts of the body, the allegation as to commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC is not substantiated prima facie."
Quashing the criminal proceedings before the Sessions Court, the Court observed, "I am inclined to allow the prayer for quashment at the instance of the petitioner, on the strength of settlement, where the injured person supported settlement."
Cause Title: Arshad v. State of Kerala And Anr. [CRL.MC 9250 of 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate K. Reeha Khader
Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.Renjith George and Advocate N. Jishine Babu