JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. These Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR Nos. 308/2021 and 307/2021 of Police Station Osian, District Jodhpur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on a trivial dispute, the petitioners and private respondents, vice versa in both the misc. petitions, have filed two counter FIRs against each other.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the misc. petitions have submitted that the petitioners and the private respondents are neighbours and on account of some trivial dispute a quarrel took place between them, which resulted into the registration of the above referred impugned FIRs. It is submitted that now both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and entered into a compromise. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned FIRs may kindly be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between both the parties.

4. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 24.01.2022 the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report Nos. 433 and 432 dated 07.02.2022, wherein the compromise arrived at between the parties has been verified by the Investigating officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIRs.

5. As per the factual report No. 433 dated 07.02.2022 produced in SBCRLMP No. 7127/2021, the FIR No. 308/2021 of Police Station Osian District Jodhpur has been lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 323, 307, 354, 354(A) and 379 IPC, however, the police have found involvement of the petitioners only for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323 and 325 IPC.

6. As per the factual report No. 432 dated 07.02.2022 produced in SBCRLMP No. 7128/2021, the FIR No. 307/2021 of Police Station Osian District Jodhpur has been lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 451, 354(A) and 323 IPC, however, the police have found involvement of the petitioners only for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323 and 324 IPC.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

8. It is admitted that the dispute between the rival parties has already been settled amicably and the same has been verified by the Investigating officer.

9. Today also learned counsel for the private respondents appearing in both the misc. have categorically submitted that the private respondents in both the misc. petitions do not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIRs as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties.

10. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.09.2021 rendered in Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489/2012) along with Krishnappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1488/2012), after taking into consideration its earlier decisions rendered in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and several other judgments, has held as under:

“19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim and (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and