The court can exercise its power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on the nature of the offence, voluntary nature of the compromise, and the conduct of the accused persons.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIR No. 565/2021 lodged at Police Station Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh.

2. The impugned FIR has been lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 alleging therein that when he along with his father and son doing some work in their agricultural field, the petitioners suddenly came there and started quarreling with them. It is further alleged by the respondent No. 2 that petitioner No. 1 Dharampal had inflicted an injury on the head of his father Devilal and other petitioners have started assaulting them. It is also stated by the complainant that after hearing hue and cry, Ramlal and Chetram came there and took them to hospital at Hanumangarh. It is alleged by the respondent No. 2 that his father Devilal was thereafter referred to a hospital at Bikaner where he is still unconscious.

3. On receiving this report, the police started investigation; recorded statement of the witnesses and while taking into consideration the injury reports has concluded that injured Rajendra had received as many as two injuries, out of which, one injury is on his forearm, which is grievous in nature, whereas injured Devilal had received two injuries, out of which, one injury is on his head, which is also grievous in nature.

4. The police has concluded the investigation and found that the petitioners are guilty of commission of offence under Section 447, 323, 325, 341, 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 are real brothers and were having some dispute in relation to partition of the agricultural land. It is further submitted that on the day of the incident, some altercation took place between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2, which resulted into scuffle, in which, the respondent No. 2 and his father had received injuries. It is also submitted that with the intervention of the relatives, the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and in such circumstances, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also verified the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and submitted that he has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

7. On 16.2.2022, this Court directed the petitioners, respondent No. 2 and injured Devilal to remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing and pursuant to that, the petitioners, respondent No. 2 and injured Devilal are present in person before this Court today.

8. The respondent No. 2 and injured Devilal have submitted that the dispute between them and the petitioners was in relation to partition of agricultural land and now the same has already been settled amicably. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 2 and injured Devilal have no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that ordinarily, FIR in relation to a heinous crime cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. In the present matter also, the police has concluded that the petitioners are involved in commission of a heinous crime such as attempt to commit murder, however, after going through the charge-sheet and taking into consideration the fact that it is not a case of repeated blows; keeping in view the fact that the fight erupted between the parties all of a sudden and there was no preparation on the part of the petitioners and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner No. 1 and the complainant-respondent No. 2 are brothers and the injured Devilal is their father and as the dispute has already been settled amicably and the parties have arrived at a compromise, it would be appropriate to end the criminal