JUDGMENT :

1. None appears on behalf of the Petitioners on call. Heard Ms. T. Jini, the learned Additional P.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) for quashing of Basar P.S. Case No.03/2015 registered under Sections 452/326/427/34 IPC as well as corresponding G.R. Case No.31/2016 which is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo, on the ground of mutual settlement dated 19.07.2019 arrived at between the parties i.e. the complainant, victim and the accused.

3. The facts of the instant case is that on 25.02.2015 at 8.15 hours, a written complaint was received by P.S. Basar from one Sri. Koken Taba, aged about 80 years, son of Late Tako Taba of village Nyobom (Old Market Basar) P.O./P.S. Basar, District West Siang (AP) to the effect that on 27.02.2015 at around 2.30 pm, the petitioners herein entered into his house, broken the room doors and beaten up his son Kenrik Taba and daughter-in-law with the weapons and tried to kill both of them within a minute, ran away totally broken the Alto Car. On receipt of the said complaint, a case vide Basar P.S. Case No.03/2015 was registered under Sections 452/324/427/34 IPC.

4. It further transpires from the charge sheet so submitted that the accused at Column No. 11, Serial No. 11-A, 11-B, 11-C, 11-D, 11-E, 11-F, 11-G, 11-H, 11- I, 11-J, 11-K, 11-L, 11-M, 11-N, 11-O of the charge sheet arrived at the house of Koken Taba equipped with lathis, iron rod and daos on 27.02.2015 at around 2.30 PM. It further transpires from the charge sheet that the accused at Serial No.11-A to 11-D entered into the house of Koken Taba physically assaulted to Kenrik Taba and his wife Ebi Taba (Sora) and caused grievous hurt to them and damaged the car of Kenrik Taba parked in his house compound and ran away within few minutes after committing crime.

5. It is under such circumstances that the charge sheet has been filed under Sections 452/326/427/34 IPC. It further appears from the records that the said Basar P.S. Case No.03/2015 had given rise to G.R. Case No.31/2016 and the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District had taken cognizance of the same and the said G.R. Case No.31/2016 was pending for consideration of charge.

6. Subsequent thereto, it further appears on record that there has been some form of a compromise entered into between the accused and the victim on 19.07.2019 which has been enclosed to the instant criminal petition as Annexure-3.

7. In the above facts, let this Court take into consideration the settled position of law as to whether the FIR as well as the G.R. Case No.31/2016 can be quashed on the basis of the compromise. The law has been well settled by the Supreme Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 936 wherein the Supreme Court observed that Court exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot examine the correctness of the allegations in the complaint except in exceptional rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or does not disclose any offence. It was further observed that the criminal proceedings cannot be nipped at the bud by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only because there has been a settlement. The Supreme Court observed that the offences which fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and are crime against the society and not against the individual alone cannot be nipped at the bud on the basis of a settlement. Paragraph 39 to 50 being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:

“39. Orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent, where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to extract money from the Accused. Furthermore, financially s