The court emphasized that FIRs for heinous offences like Section 307 IPC cannot be quashed based solely on compromise, prioritizing societal impact and the possibility of conviction.

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. 119 of 2022, dated 24.07.2022, registered at Police Station at Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 , 325 read with Section 34 IPC and 25 of the Indian ARMS ACT . It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the F.I.R. be quashed based on the compromise. The statement of the informant was recorded, in which he stated that the matter had been compromised with the intervention of respectable persons of the society and, he has no objection in case F.I.R. is ordered to be quashedin view of the compromise.

2. I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent no.1/State.

3. Mr. N.K.Thakur learned Senior Counsel submitted that the F.I.R. has been registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC, however, no serious injury was caused in the present case. There is no likelihood of conviction in view of the compromise. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R. be quashed. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Kasim Deen & Ors vs. State of H.P. & Others, Cr.MP (M) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 478 of 2021 decided on 15^th July 2022 and Kala & others vs State of H.P. & others, in Cr.MP(M) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 175 of 2021, decided on 24^th December 2021 in support of his submission.

4. Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner had used the firearm to cause injury to the victim. The offence is grave and cannot be quashed based on compromise.

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

6. 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 society. An 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 a crime against society. However, it will be open to 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 mur