Factual Background 

In the case of Shri Khrir Lyngkhoi v. State of Meghalaya a criminal petition that was submitted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requesting the court to use its inherent authority to stop the actions being taken against the petitioner under Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner went to pick up his pet cat from his father-in-law’s house. The petitioner’s father-in-law was holding the cat when he suddenly hurled it into the bushes, angering the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner used a dao to seriously injure and perforate his father-in-law’s left side of the abdomen. After that, the petitioner was the target of a First Information Report filed by the applicant’s brother-in-law under Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC, a non-compoundable offence. The petitioner, the brother-in-law, and the father-in-law later signed a deed of compromise after realising that the incident was only the result of misunderstanding and provocation, which caused the reaction in the heat of the moment but that there was no intent to harm anyone, much less attempt to murder.

Issue 

Whether a necessary and effective order can be passed using the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, on a compromise reached between the parties and on the indication to not proceed with the criminal proceedings before the Trial Court?

Conclusion of the Court 

The petition was approved and the petitioner was released from the aforementioned obligations by the Meghalaya High Court’s Single Judge Bench, which also quashed the FIR brought against the petitioner under Section 307.

The petitioner had claimed that the victim had provoked the incident by tossing the petitioner’s cat into the bushes, but the court noted that while an offence under Section 307 IPC is a serious one, the possibility of frayed tempers cannot be ruled out, and the alleged altercation must have happened in the heat of the moment. As a result, the Court determined that it was at least implausible that the petitioner’s action was premeditated or carried out with the awareness that it would result in death. Additionally, the Court stated that because the Compromise Deed was used to settle the dispute by family members who thought it was appropriate, the episode would affect the Trial Court proceedings.

As a result, after taking into account the unusual facts and circumstances of the case, the Court granted the petition, acceded to the request for the exercise of authority under Section 482 CrPC, and released the petitioner from all obligations. The Court quashed the FIR and the ensuing actions taken against the petitioner.