“No-Injury” Attempts to Murder & The Narrow Lane of Section 482 CrPC
Commentary on Harendra Bansal & Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another (2025 AHC 144718)

1. Introduction

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Harendra Bansal & Anr. v. State of U.P. revisits two notoriously thorny questions in Indian criminal procedure: (i) When, if ever, can an FIR/charge-sheet alleging an offence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) be quashed on the ground that the victim sustained no injury? and (ii) How stringently must courts confine themselves while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC at the pre-trial stage?

The applicants—one of whom is a practising lawyer—sought quashing of the charge-sheet, the summoning order, and the entire criminal proceedings arising from an alleged armed attack following a long-standing enmity. The High Court refused to interdict the trial, providing interim protection only to facilitate surrender and bail.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Relief Sought: Quashing of charge-sheet dated 15-01-2024, summoning order (09-05-2025) and entire proceedings in Case No. 7399/2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 307, 120-B IPC.
• Key Finding: Allegations and materials on record, taken at face value, prima facie disclose the commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC even though the informant suffered no injury.
• Result: Application dismissed. Applicant-advocate given three weeks’ protective window to surrender; bail to be considered expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil.
• New Ratio: In “no-injury” cases under Section 307, the intent to kill remains a factual issue triable only by the trial court; Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to short-circuit such determination unless the case falls within the classic Bhajan Lal / R.P. Kapur exceptions.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

1. Shoyeb Raja v. State of M.P. (Cr. A. No. 3327/2024) – Supreme Court emphasised that intent or knowledge under Section 307 is a question of fact. The High Court adopts this dictum to show why a “no-injury” scenario does not automatically dislodge Section 307.
2. Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy (2023 LiveLaw SC 642) – Reaffirmed that credibility of witnesses and merits of evidence are arenas of the trial court; Section 482 is not a forum for mini-trials. The present Court leans heavily on this to repel the applicants’ factual defences.
3. Classical Trilogy – R.P. Kapur (1960), State Of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), P.P. Sharma (1992) – These cases carve out narrow categories in which inherent powers can quash proceedings. Justice Deepak Verma reiterates that the applicants’ case fits none of them.
4. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (2005) – Cited for the cautionary principle that Section 482 is a remedy of last resort, not first instinct.
5. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021) – Provides the procedural framework for liberal consideration of bail; used to grant limited protection to the advocate-accused.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Justice Deepak Verma’s reasoning unfolds in three distinct steps:

1. Facial Scrutiny Standard: He accepts, arguendo, the allegations at their face value. Under this standard, the FIR and witness statements allege firearms discharge with intent to kill—squarely invoking Section 307 IPC.
2. Factual Determination Deferred: Whether the bullets were actually fired by the applicants, or whether any shot was lethal, are factual matters reserved for trial. The Court underscores that such “traversal into proof” would convert Section 482 into an appellate jurisdiction.
3. Application of Bhajan Lal Test: None of the seven Bhajan Lal categories (e.g., legal bar, absurd allegations, mala fide) are triggered. Hence, inherent powers cannot be exercised.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation & Criminal Jurisprudence

• “No-Injury ≠ No 307” Clarified: Defence counsel in Uttar Pradesh often argue that absence of injury negates Section 307. This judgment adds to a growing High-Court consensus that the mental element, not the medical report, is decisive at the charge-quashing stage.
• Section 482 Predictability: Re-emphasising the Bhajan Lal framework curtails forum shopping and fosters doctrinal consistency among trial, revisional and writ courts.
• Advocate-Accused Accommodation: The Court’s measured interim protection signals a balancing trend—respecting the profession’s practicalities while not derailing the prosecution.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder)

Punishes an act done with intention or knowledge that, if death were caused, would amount to murder. Actual injury is non-essential; the focus is on the mental element and the overt act.

Section 482 CrPC (Inherent Powers)

Empowers High Courts to pass orders necessary to (i) give effect to any CrPC order, (ii) prevent abuse of process, or (iii) secure justice. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction to be used sparingly.

Prima facie Case

A case that appears on its face to contain sufficient allegations to proceed to trial, assuming the facts alleged are true.

Bhajan Lal Categories

Seven illustrative circumstances where criminal proceedings may be quashed (e.g., allegations absurd, absence of cognisable offence, legal bar, mala fide etc.). They serve as constitutional guard-rails for Section 482 exercise.

5. Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Harendra Bansal reinforces a pivotal message: Attempts to murder are trial-worthy even without bodily harm; and Section 482 remains a narrow, exceptional corridor, not a broad highway for accused persons to bypass trial.

By dovetailing Supreme Court guidance with the dependable Bhajan Lal matrix, the Court assures predictability while accommodating professional realities through limited interim protection. Future litigants—and particularly defence counsel in “no-injury, Section 307” scenarios—must now reckon with this precedent before approaching the High Court for quashing.