JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 137/2023, dated 26.7.2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307, 323, and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. The matter was compromised between the parties. The victim Vivek Singh Thakur made a statement that he has settled the matter with the petitioners voluntarily and he has no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed because of the compromise entered between the parties.

2. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent no. 1-State submitted that the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC was involved and the FIR should not be quashed based on compromise.

3. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

4. It was laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 that the Court can quash the FIR/criminal proceedings based on the settlement to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Such power is not to be exercised in heinous offences like murder, dacoity, rape etc. which have a serious impact on the society. Offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC would also fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and is to be treated as crimes against society. However, it will be open for the High Court to go by the nature of the injury, part of the body where the injury was inflicted and the nature of the injury to determine whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chance of the conviction are remote and bleak. It was observed:-

“29.1. The power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, the offences alleged to have been committed under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationships or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crimes against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this pro