Dalveer Bhandari,j.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for quashing the FIR and investigation of the case No. 599/97 under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:

( 2 ) THE petitioner hired a farm house of one Arjun Sayal, the Complainant for two days for holding a wedding reception of his son. It was agreed that the petitioner would pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 for holding the reception. The amount was inclusive of the food provided at the wedding reception on the 25th and 26th of November, 1997. The complainant who is respondent No. 2 in this petition admittedly received Rs. 1,10,000. 00 in advance. The balance amount of Rs. 1,40,000. 00 was to be paid after the wedding reception and according to their understanding. When the reception was about to finish, at that point of time around 2:00 a. m. the complainant demanded the balance amount from the petitioner. The petitioner did not like the complainant s demanding the amount because at that time he was enjoying the wedding reception with his friends. The petitioner nodded his head and mentioned that the balance amount will be paid after the reception. The complainant again demanded the amount after an hour at 3:00 a. m. , when practically the reception was over and only 4 to 5 persons were left. The petitioner got enraged and started abusing the complainant and said "i will pay your amount just now and the asked one person who was standing nearby to pay the amount. Incidently, at that time the petitioner was holding a 12 bore gun in his hand. On repeated demands of the remaining outstanding amount, the petitioner got infuriated and to frighten the complainant, the petitioner fired a shot in the air and again he gave the impression as if he was loading the second cartridge to hit the complainant. The complainant felt that probably the petitioner was loading the same with a view to fire at the complainant. The complainant ran from the scene. However, the petitioner did not fire the second cartridge. The complainant mentioned in the report to the S. H. O. later on that he became nervous and frightened and consequently he could not assess the correct position and as a matter of fact due to some misunderstanding. The complainant reported the matter to the police so that no harm could be cause to him thereafter. However, on the complaint of the complainant, a case was registered and investigation was carried out. During the pendency of the investigation. In view of the settlement before the parties the complainant Arjun Sayal moved an application before the S. H. O. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi with the prayer that matter need not be investigated further and may be closed. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner has now moved this court for quashing the FIR and other proceedings pending against him in view of the settlement and compromise between the parties.

( 3 ) MR. I. U. Khan, the leaned counsel appeared for the petitioner and Mr. P. R. Thakur, the learned counsel appeared as amicus curiae in this case to assist the court. The pivotal question which arose for the consideration of the Court is whether the Court can grant permission to compound the non-compoundable offences or quash the proceedings in view of the settlement? At this stage, I deem it appropriate to deal with some decided cases dealing with this proposition.

( 4 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in the celebrated case reported as State of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswami and others AIR 1977 SC 1489 observed that the High Court under its inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that allowing proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that ends the justice required that the proceedings ought to be quashed. In the said judgment, the Court observed that ends of justice are higher than ends of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document