Attempt to murder is not compoundable — yet prosecutions under Section 307 IPC (now Section 109 of the BNS) are quashed with some regularity. The reconciliation lies in a distinction courts draw carefully: between the label in the chargesheet and the substance in the evidence. The Rajasthan High Court’s decision in Bhavarlal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 8816/2026 (2026:RJ-JD:46344), decided on 24 September 2026, quashed an entire sessions case after settlement, because the trial court had already accepted compromise on the lesser charges and every material witness had resiled.
How the case reached quashing
The prosecution arose from FIR No. 225/2020 and travelled to a sessions trial. During its pendency the parties resolved their differences. The trial court, within its statutory limits, accepted compounding of the offences that the law permits to be compounded — wrongful restraint and simple hurt — but had no power over Sections 307 and 324 read with 34 IPC. The trial then delivered its own verdict on reality: the two injured persons and the complainant entered the witness box, resiled from the prosecution case, confirmed the settlement and declined to support further prosecution. Four petitioners moved the High Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of what remained.
The court’s reasoning
Where settlement quashing works — and where it does not
| Favourable terrain | Hostile terrain |
|---|---|
| Offences with a predominantly private flavour: matrimonial disputes, neighbourhood altercations, business fallouts | Heinous offences and crimes against society: serious sexual offences, offences by public servants, organised crime |
| Injuries simple or unproved; weapon and role ambiguous | Grievous injuries on vital parts, repeated blows, clear intention — where 307 is truly substantiated |
| Settlement complete, voluntary and acted upon | Settlements procured by pressure, or leaving some victims out |
| Trial collapsed: witnesses resiled on oath | Prosecution evidence still intact and unrecorded |
Timing advice for petitioners: move promptly once the settlement is genuinely complete, and place the compromise, affidavits of the injured, and — where the trial has begun — the hostile depositions on record. Petitions supported by the trial’s own transcript, as here, present the High Court with a fait accompli of futility rather than a request to speculate.
The larger point
Quashing on settlement is not amnesty; it is docket realism disciplined by categories. The line the courts hold — private disputes may close, public wrongs may not — keeps the inherent power legitimate. Bhavarlal sits comfortably on the permissible side of that line: a quarrel, a settlement the trial court itself honoured in part, and a prosecution surviving only on paper.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
If Section 307 is non-compoundable, how can the case end by settlement?
Compounding under Section 359 BNSS and quashing under Section 528 BNSS are different powers. Compounding is a statutory list; quashing is the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process. Where a settlement has drained a prosecution of its realistic prospect — especially in disputes with a private character — the High Court may quash even non-compoundable offences, exercising caution proportionate to the offence’s gravity.
What convinced the court here?
Three convergent facts: the parties had settled amicably; the trial court had already accepted compromise on the compoundable charges (Sections 341 and 323 read with 34 IPC), leaving only the 307/324 counts; and all three key witnesses — both injured persons and the complainant — had turned hostile, deposing on oath that the matter stood settled. Continuation promised only an inevitable acquittal after wasted years.
Does the seriousness of Section 307 not bar this course?
It demands scrutiny, not abstention. Following the Supreme Court’s framework, the High Court examined whether Section 307 was genuinely substantiated by the evidence — the nature of injuries, weapons and role — or merely included in the charge. Where the trajectory of the evidence no longer supports the aggravated charge, the label does not keep the case alive.
Is this approach available in Delhi?
Yes. Section 528 BNSS preserves the same inherent power the Delhi High Court exercised under Section 482 CrPC, and settlement-based quashing of matrimonial, neighbourhood and business-adjacent violence cases — with Section 307 examined on its evidentiary substance — follows the same principles.