Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, presided over by Justice Purnendu Singh, granted interim protection for four months to the petitioner in connection with a 2002 assault case arising out of political rivalry, observing that both sides had agreed to amicably settle their long-standing disputes.
The Court referred the matter to the District Mediation Centre, West Champaran, and directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner during this period. It also stayed the operation of the District and Additional Sessions Judge’s order dated 2 August 2025, pending the outcome of mediation.
The Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Naushey Ali & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2025) 4 SCC 78, reiterating that if parties reach a genuine settlement in offences of personal nature, the trial court is empowered to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.
Facts
The case stemmed from a 2002 altercation in Bagaha, West Champaran, where the informant alleged that around 1:00 to 2:00 PM on 8 April 2002, several persons, including the petitioner, arrived at his residence in a Gypsy vehicle and forcibly took him to the Bagaha Assembly premises, where he was allegedly assaulted.
According to the First Information Report (FIR), the accused, acting in furtherance of a common intention, attacked the informant over disputes related to a political scam case and land disputes. The informant claimed that he was manhandled, confined in the vehicle, and assaulted at two locations. The incident was witnessed by several local residents.
As a result, Bagaha P.S. Case No. 66 of 2002 was registered under Sections 447, 341, 342, 323, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In a retaliatory move, the petitioner also filed Bagaha P.S. Case No. 65 of 2002, alleging an assault by the informant and his associates, invoking Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 IPC and Sections 25(1-b)(A), 26, and 27 of the SC/ST Act. Both cases arose from the same incident, involving rival political groups.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could grant interim protection and refer the matter for mediation when both parties expressed willingness to compromise in a criminal case.
- Whether the inclusion of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) was justified given the nature of injuries and weapons used.
- Whether a compromise in such cases would serve the ends of justice without undermining the seriousness of the offence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Kumar, argued that the case was the result of political enmity and a cycle of retaliatory FIRs filed by both parties during a period of political tension in the area. He submitted that both sides had now resolved to bury their differences and restore peace.
He contended that the injuries sustained were simple in nature, and hence, the inclusion of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) was exaggerated and unsustainable. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 78, where the Court held that even in cases alleging attempt to murder, if the injury is not on a vital part of the body and the parties have settled, continuation of trial serves no purpose.
It was further argued that since the petitioner and the informant had mutually agreed to settle, the High Court should grant interim protection to facilitate a formal mediation process.
Respondent’s Arguments
The learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Natraj Verma, concurred with the petitioner’s submissions, confirming that the parties were from rival political backgrounds and had filed multiple criminal cases against each other over the years.
He admitted that both sides had now opted for reconciliation and sought four months’ time to complete the mediation process. The informant expressed his consent for withdrawal of all pending cases, including cross-FIRs, as part of the settlement.
The State’s counsel, Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP, supported the mediation proposal, stating that amicable settlement of politically motivated cases helps in restoring social harmony and reduces unnecessary litigation burden on courts.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the broader legal principle governing compounding or settlement of criminal offences under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
It referred to Naushey Ali & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 78, wherein the Supreme Court discussed the applicability of the doctrine of quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, even in cases involving serious charges like Section 307 IPC, provided the injuries were not fatal and no public interest was compromised.
The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466_ and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688_, which held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC in an FIR does not automatically make an offence non-compoundable. Courts must look at the nature of injury, weapon used, and surrounding circumstances before deciding whether a case qualifies for compromise.
Precedent Analysis
- Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 78 – The Supreme Court held that if the injuries are simple and no fatal intent is evident, even offences under Section 307 IPC can be quashed upon genuine settlement.
Applied here: To justify interim protection and referral to mediation. - Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 – Recognized that courts may exercise discretion under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in personal disputes even involving serious charges, if public interest is not affected.
Applied here: To emphasize the discretionary power of courts in facilitating settlements. - State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 – Clarified that in assessing applicability of Section 307 IPC, courts should examine whether injuries were on vital parts and whether the evidence supports a genuine attempt to murder.
Applied here: To hold that the present case does not meet the ingredients of Section 307 IPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the injuries sustained by the informant were simple and that the FIR’s inclusion of Section 307 IPC appeared to be motivated by political rivalry. Referring to the Apex Court’s ruling in Naushey Ali, the Bench reiterated:
“The mere mention of Section 307 IPC should not deter the court from examining the true nature of the offence. If the injuries are not on vital parts and the parties have resolved their dispute, the continuation of trial would be a futile exercise.”
Justice Purnendu Singh noted that the incident occurred over two decades ago, and since both parties were now willing to settle, further prosecution would amount to “abuse of the process of law”.
The Court directed that both parties appear before the District Court, West Champaran, on 31 October 2025, and file a joint compromise petition. The District Judge was instructed to refer the matter to the District Mediation Centre, whose mediator was to submit a report within four months.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:
- Interim protection was granted to the petitioner for four months, during which no coercive action shall be taken.
- The order of the District and Additional Sessions Judge dated 2 August 2025 was stayed until the outcome of mediation.
- Both parties must appear before the District Court on 31 October 2025 and cooperate in the mediation process.
- If the mediation succeeds, the trial court may pass appropriate orders to close the case based on the joint petition.
- If compromise fails, the trial shall continue in accordance with law.
The Court concluded that since the matter was personal and political, and not of a grave public nature, settlement was in the best interest of justice.
Implications
This judgment underscores that even in criminal cases involving serious allegations, courts can promote restorative justice when parties genuinely wish to reconcile. It reinforces that Section 307 IPC should not be applied mechanically, and the nature of injuries and context of the offence must guide judicial discretion.
It also highlights the judiciary’s pragmatic approach in politically motivated cases, encouraging mediation over prolonged litigation to reduce pendency and promote social peace.
FAQs
1. Can a case under Section 307 IPC be quashed on compromise?
Yes, if the injury is minor, the weapon used is not deadly, and both parties agree to settle, courts may quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC following Naushey Ali (2025) and Laxmi Narayan (2019).
2. What did the Patna High Court direct in this case?
The Court granted interim protection, stayed the trial court’s order, and referred the matter to mediation, allowing four months for settlement.
3. What happens if mediation fails?
If compromise is not achieved, the interim protection lapses, and the trial resumes under regular criminal procedure.