1. This application has been filed to quash the FIR No.23/2008 registered by the Antop Hill Police Station, Mumbai, on 21st January, 2008 for the offences under Section 326, 324, 506, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The main ground for quashing of FIR is that the complainant and the applicants have settled the differences in between themselves.

2. It may be stated at the outset that the criminal law is based on the principles that the offences committed are against the State and also against the victim. Therefore, the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code is such that most of the serious offences are not compoundable, less offences are compoundable with the permission of the court and some trivial offences are compoundable at the behest of the complainant. If this scheme is kept in mind, then it will be clear that even if the victims or the injured are prepared to compromise the matter the State itself insists on conviction and punishment because the offence is against the State. In any case the applicants have not come to this court for compounding of the offence but have come for quashing of the FIR against them.

3. Now the principles laid down by the Supreme Court are so well enumerated that it will not be difficult to come to a conclusion whether in the present case the FIR could be quashed or not. It may be remembered that the criminal juris prudence in this country is that once an investigation discloses commission of an offence it should reach to its normal conclusion by way of a fair trial. We will not deal with many judgments which have been delivered from the Privy Council till date. But we will only refer to the principles which have been followed in State of Haryana and Ors. V/s Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, because the principles laid down in this judgment were in fact the principles which had been laid prior to this judgment and were consolidated by this judgment and even after 1992 these principles have been followed. In paragraph 108 of the judgment the following principles were laid down :

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

In as much as the scope of S