Point of Law : 15.5. Section 482 of Code to quash criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on ground that there is a settlement/compromise between victim and offender, the High Court is required to consider antecedents of accused.

ORDER :

The instant petition has been filed for the grant following relief:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and the FIR No. 54/2017 dated 14.04.2017 registered against the petitioners at Police Station Jawali, Distt. Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences under Sections 307, 325, 323, 147,148,149 and 506 of the IPC and criminal proceedings rising therefrom i.e. Sessions Trial Nos. 95/2019 titled as State of H.P. Versus Sahil @ Chotu and Ors., may kindly be quashed and set aside, keeping in view the facts enumerated in the present petition, in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that on 14.04.2017, FIR No. 54/2017, was registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 307, 325, 323,147,148,149 and 506 of the IPC. The source for registration of case was a statement made by respondent No. 2 herein under Section 154 of Cr.P.C, alleging inter alia that at about 5:30 in the evening on 14.04.2017, complainant alongwith his friends Abhinandan (respondent No. 3), Rajat, Shubham Dhiman and Sanjeev Jassal visited “Baishakhi Fair” at Dehar Khad. About a week prior to said date, Sahil @ Chottu (petitioner No.1) had threatened to kill the complainant in case he dared to face him. When the complainant and his friends were enjoying snacks, respondent No. 1 alongwith Rikki, Shanu @ Dela, Hanu and Mitthu driver came together and slapped complainant. He was also pushed and floored on the ground. They were having sticks in their hands and all of them started beating him. Respondent No. 3 tried to intervene but he was also beaten. All other friends could rescue the complainant with difficulty. Many people gathered on the spot. Complainant suffered injuries on left leg, chest and head. Similarly, respondent No. 3 suffered injuries on his left ear. Thereafter, the assailants fled towards rivulet and while leaving the spot again issued threats of life to the complainant.

3. After registration of case, investigation was carried out. The challan was filed against the petitioners. The injury on the head of the complainant was opined by the Medical Officer to be dangerous to life and injury on the ear of respondent No.3 was opined as grievous, therefore, challan was filed for offence including Sections 307 and 325 of IPC. As per contents of the challan, petitioners had used dangerous weapons like sticks, steel grips and chopper etc..

4. Petitioners have placed on record, Annexure P-3, which is a photocopy of compromise deed dated 14.10.2019 executed between the petitioners and respondent No.1 and Annexure P-4, compromise deed executed between respondent No. 3 and petitioners. It is on the basis of these compromise deeds that a prayer has been made to quash FIR in question and consequent criminal proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2019 pending before learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

5. Respondent/State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent/State that petitioners have committed the offences in open public place in gruesome manner and without any fear of law. The offence under Section 307 IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to imprisonment for life. Offence under Section 307 IPC being an offence of serious nature, proceedings pending trial for such an offence should not be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case. As per said respondent, allowing compromise in such case will boost the morale of accused persons and would also make mockery of law.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record.

7. The facts on record reveal that it was not an instance of sudden fight between group of young persons. The complainant specifically alleged that petitioner No.1 had threatened to kill him about a week prior to incident. It suggests two poss