Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah gave a landmark judgement proclaiming to the fact that the criminal proceedings under S.307 of IPC which deals with the provision of attempt to murder cannot be dismissed on the grounds of mere settlement as it is significant to note that the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 is a non-compoundable offence. This scenario was highlighted when an appeal was filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The notion was however against the judgment given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had quashed the proceedings against four persons who were accused under Sections 307 and 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
In the year 2013 in Gwalior District a criminal complaint against the accused persons was filed by the complainant. It is important to note that the main accused had moved to Madhya Pradesh High Court praying that all the criminal proceedings against him should be dismissed as there was a settlement between him and the complainant had been settled and resolved. He had also presented evidence in his support by submitting an affidavit by the complainant in front of the High Court which proclaimed to the fact that the complainant was in full support of dropping the charges against the accused.
“It is required to be noted that the original Accused was facing the criminal proceedings under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is not in dispute that as per Section 20 of the Cr.PC offence sunder Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are noncompoundable. It is also required to be noted that the allegations in the complaint for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are, as such, very serious. It is alleged that the accused fired twice on the complainant by a countrymade pistol. From the material on record, it appears that one of the accused persons was reported to be a hardcore criminal having criminal antecedents.”
The High Court had observed under the Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and had quashed the proceedings owing to the fact that the dispute was settled. But, however this judgement was challenged by the state and it had approached the Supreme Court represented by Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi and the accused was represented by Advocate Malini Poduval. It was mentioned by the court that the offence under Section 307 was non-compoundable and it is important to take note of the actions of the accused.
86540
103860
630
114
59824