Compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIR for serious offences if no injury occurred, emphasizing societal peace and judicial efficiency.

JUDGMENT :

(Virender Singh, J.)

The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) for quashing of FIR No.58 of 2023, dated 07.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1969, with Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, in order to maintain their cordial relations.

3. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which have been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2.

4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made.

5. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

6. It is the further case of respondent No.1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

7. Today, respondent No. 2, who, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between him and the petitioner. According to him, on 06.06.2023, an incident had taken place and the petitioner had fired a shot, but in the said incident, respondent No.2 had not sustained any injury.

8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that now with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised between them. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner.

10. Heard.

11. From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties.

12. The person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. He has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed.

13. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 2, respondent No.2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

14. Although the present case has been registered under the provisions of Section 307 of IPC, however, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 the same can be compounded, as no injury has been inflicted in this case. Relevant paragraph-15 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

“15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held a