Important Point - Any observations made herein before are prima facie in nature and trial Court should not get influenced by the said observations.

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. This Application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with prayer to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings/FIR bearing Crime No. 17/2017, registered with Dhule City Police Station, Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is well-educated person and conducts private tuition at Pimpalner, District Dhule. Respondent no. 3 herein i.e. informant-Yogesh Hunumant Bhokre filed First Information Report bearing Crime No. 17/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code with Dhule City Police Station, Dhule, against the applicant. It is submitted that, with intervention of the senior persons residing in the vicinity wherein the houses of the applicant and respondent no. 3 are situated; they have decided amicably to settle the dispute in order to have peace and cordial relations between each other. It is submitted that, respondent no. 3 has not suffered any grievous injuries and in the interest of justice keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, when the informant i.e. victim and the offender have decided to bring amicable settlement, in that case, the possibility of conviction may be remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant invites our attention to the contents of the compromise pursis and submits that the applicant and respondent no. 3 have affirmed the compromise pursis and it is stated that the applicant and respondent no. 3 will reside peacefully and will not quarrel or create any dispute henceforth. There will not be any such incident in future. The applicant and respondent no. 3 have no any grievance or objection, if the criminal proceedings are quashed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 also submits that in the light of compromise between the applicant and respondent no. 3, the application may be allowed.

4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that there is criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant assaulted respondent no. 3 by knife and tried to kill him. The offence is serious in nature. From the date of registration of the offence, the applicant has absconded. The injury is inflicted by the applicant on the chest of respondent no. 3, therefore, the injury is on vital part. The applicant is likely to cause disappearance of the evidence including knife used in the alleged commission of offence. The medical certificate of respondent no. 3 is collected by the Investigating Officer. The possibility of indulgence of the accused in similar commission of the offences cannot be ruled out. The applicant has created fear in the mind of the school going students. Though the applicant applied for the anticipatory bail, the said application was withdrawn.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, and the learned APP appearing for respondent-State. With their able assistance, we have carefully perused the contents of the FIR, contents of the application, and the joint compromise pursis filed by the applicant and respondent no. 3 and also the investigation papers and we are of the opinion that, since the alleged offence is punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the injury inflicted by the applicant is on vital part i.e. chest of respondent no. 3 and also there is no denial to the fact that earlier also the applicant was involved in the alleged commission of some other offence, in our opinion, the prayer of applicant to quash the FIR on the basis of amicable settlement cannot be a