ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The instant revision petition under Section 397 CrPC read with Section 401 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu in F.R. No.382/2017 (FIR No.15/2017 of Police Station Sardarshahar, District Churu), whereby cognizance has been taken against to the petitioners for the offences under Sections 451 , 323/34 and 143 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have decided to settle the dispute amicably and have arrived at a compromise. He has placed on record the compromise deed dated 03.08.2023, wherein it is stated that the parties have arrived at a compromise and the complainant does not wish to pursue criminal proceedings against the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition may be allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners may be put to an end.

3. Learned counsel for complainant does not dispute the fact of compromise and expresses his inclination for acquittal of accused petitioners on the ground of compromise.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that since the offence under Section 143 of the IPC is not compoundable, therefore, matter should be decided on merits only.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The fact of compromise is reflecting from the record of the case. The FIR is of the year 2017. The dispute arose on a trivial issue of erecting a boundary wall on a plot. It is also appearing that the parties belong to the same locality and are neighbours. They have decided to settle the matter out of court. The learned court below has taken cognisance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 451 , 323/34 and 143 IPC. Although the offence under Section 143 of the IPC is non-compoundable, but this Court is aptly guided by the judicial pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it is propounded that if the parties resolve the dispute amicably and the matter does not pertain to breach of public peace and essentially, it is a dispute inter se/between the parties, then in such circumstances, with a view to establish harmony between two families, the proceedings can be quashed by the high Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Whenever the fact of compromise is taken into consideration by the Court, discretion has to be exercised with caution and while considering the circumstances prevalent in the matter at hand.

7. In the present case, considering all the factors, including the fact of compromise, this Court is of the opinion that allowing continuance of proceedings against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned order taking cognisance any further would not be expedient in the interest of justice. If the proceedings are allowed to continue, it may result into the compromise being unsettled. Thus, this court deems it appropriate to allow the revision petition.

8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu in F.R. No.382/2017 (FIR No.15/2017 of Police Station Sardarshahar, District Churu), whereby cognisance has been taken against to the petitioners for the offences under Sections 451 , 323/34 and 143 IPC, is set aside and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioners a