Rajasthan HC said that mention of Section 307 IPC in FIR Does Not Automatically Bar Quashing When Parties Voluntarily Settle Dispute.
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR registered for offences including Section 307 IPC and provisions of the Arms Act, holding that the mere inclusion of Section 307 IPC in an FIR does not require the Court to mechanically refuse quashing on the basis of a settlement.
Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that the Court can examine whether the allegation under Section 307 IPC is actually supported by the material collected during investigation, including the nature of injuries, the body part injured and the weapon allegedly used.
Justice Beniwal observed that the Court can assess whether the provision was incorporated merely for the sake of it or whether the prosecution material supports its application.
Court Relies on Supreme Court’s Guidelines
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., which clarify that although Section 307 IPC generally concerns a serious offence, the High Court is not required to adopt a “hands-off” approach merely because Section 307 appears in the FIR.
FIR Quashed After Parties Settle Dispute
For the context the case arose from an FIR, alleging offences under Sections 307 IPC and Sections of the Arms Act. But the parties subsequently entered into a compromise. After which the complainant wishes to not pursue the case and the stated that the FIR against the co- accused is already quashed by a coordinate bench.
The Court Finding the settlement and the circumstances sufficient to invoke its inherent jurisdiction, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Surendra Singh Shaktawat
For Respondent(s): Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP Mr. Gopal Singh Shekhawat for complainant