These two applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as though they have been filed in two different appeals, the questions involved are the same.

2. The applicants in both these applications have suffered conviction in respect of various offences including an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 34 of IPC. Out of one and the same incident, two cross cases arose and the accused persons, in both the cases, were convicted of offences including one punishable under section 307 of IPC. The accused in both these cases have challenged their conviction and the sentences imposed upon them by the trial Court, by filing aforesaid two appeals, which have been admitted and are pending. Now by these applications, the appellants in both these appeals are seeking that the appeals be allowed on the basis of a compromise arrived at by and between them. It is submitted that the parties being neighbours have resolved their dispute amicably, and that, as such, permission be granted to compound the offences in question.

3. Mr. R.S. Shinde, the learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 1797 of 2011 submitted that there is no bar to quash the prosecution in respect of non-compoundable offence on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. There is no doubt about the correctness of this proposition. In an appropriate case, based on a compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash the prosecution, should it appear to this Court that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. Once this Court comes to such a conclusion, it would not matter that the offence in question is not compoundable.

4. However, the fact remains that the inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised to quash the prosecution merely because the parties have chosen to settle their dispute. It all depends on the facts of each case.

5. In the instant case, the situation is rather peculiar. It is because both the parties have been held guilty and by settling the dispute between them, each party is being benefited by having case against them compounded/quashed. In other words, each party is benefited by its own consent for quashing the prosecution of the other party. In such a situation, the settlement is clearly motivated and apparently being entered into for the own benefit of that particular party.

6. The detection of offences, prosecution of the offenders and punishing those, who are found to be guilty is the task of the State. It is not for the parties to decide who should be punished and who should not be punished. When both the parties have been held guilty of the offences in question, they cannot be allowed to be benefited by such type of reciprocal arrangement.

7. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to allow the applications.

8. The applications are rejected.

However, in view of the submissions made by Mr. R.S. Shinde, the learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 1797/2011, the hearing of both the appeals is ordered to be expedited.

The appeals be listed for final hearing peremptorily, on 3rd March, 2014 at 2.30 p.m.