When Brothers Reconcile, Justice Must Heal, Not Punish: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Attempted Murder FIR

In a recent ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with other charges, following a compromise between the accused and the complainant, who are real brothers. The judgment delivered by Justice Anoop Chitkara underscores the court's discretion to quash non-compoundable offenses in light of a genuine settlement, especially when the continuation of prosecution serves no reformative purpose.
The case originated from an FIR registered on July 13, 2022, at the Sadar Police Station in Gohana, District Sonipat, Haryana. The FIR included charges under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 447 (criminal trespass), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The altercation occurred between two brothers, who later reconciled, leading to a mutual compromise. The accused petitioned the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR based on this settlement.
Justice Chitkara noted that the parties had reached a voluntary and amicable settlement, which was neither influenced by coercion nor other dubious means. The complainant, who had sustained injuries, expressed no objection to the FIR being quashed, emphasizing that all disputes between the brothers had been resolved through the intervention of family and community elders.
The court emphasized that the essence of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory, aimed at restoring peace within families and society at large. Given that the dispute arose out of a familial misunderstanding and had been amicably resolved, the continuation of criminal proceedings would only foster ill will and impede the reformation of the individuals involved.
While acknowledging that offenses under Section 307 IPC are serious and generally treated as crimes against society, the court held that it is within the High Court's discretion to assess whether there is a strong likelihood of conviction. In this case, the court found that the settlement significantly weakened the prosecution's case, and continuing the trial would not serve the larger interests of justice.
"The pendency of the trial affects the career and happiness of the accused, and when the parties have buried their hatchets, the continuation of criminal proceedings will not advance the reformative purposes of jurisprudence just for the sake of deterrence," Justice Chitkara observed.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary's balanced approach in dealing with non-compoundable offenses when a genuine compromise is reached between the parties involved. It highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that criminal law serves its reformatory purpose and does not become a tool for unnecessary harassment. This ruling may influence future cases where the nature of the offense is serious but the circumstances warrant a more compassionate and practical resolution.
 

Date of Decision: August 30, 2024