Offences under Section 307 IPC are serious and heinous, lacking the possibility of being quashed based on private compromise. Hence, societal interest in prosecuting such crimes prevails.

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 16 of 2022, dated 13.1.2022, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 4 want to maintain cordial relations. They have settled the matter by entering into a compromise. Respondents No. 2 to 4 have no grudge against the petitioners, and they do not want to proceed further with the FIR after the compromise. Hence, the petition.

3. Mr Goldy Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the parties have settled the matter amongst themselves. The allegations in the FIR do not show the commission of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed based on the compromise. He relied upon the judgments of Sahil @ Chhotu & Ors. Vs. State of HP and Ors., decided on 6.7.2023, Chetan & ors. Vs. State of HP and ors. 2023: HHC : 14032 and Naushey Ali & ors. Vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 INSC 182 in support of his submission.

4. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1/State submitted that the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is heinous and should not be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

6. Copy of the FIR (Annexure P-1) mentions that Akhil Rana, Anil Rana, Rajinder, Golu and Kaka came to the Dehri College ground on 13.1.2022 at about 5.30 PM and gave beatings to the informant Ayush and Shivank. They inflicted injuries by means of an iron grip on the informant’s head and hand. Anil’s parents also came to the spot. Anil had a darati with which he inflicted injuries. Shivank avoided the blow from his hand, and his hand was injured.

7. The allegations in the FIR prima facie show the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. The injury was inflicted on the informant’s head by means of a grip, a pointed weapon, which could have caused a puncture wound. Shivank was attacked with a darati, and he avoided the blow by means of his hands. Therefore, prima facie, the ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC are made out and the judgment of Chetan & ors. (supra) and Naushey Ali & ors. (supra) do not apply to the present case.

8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 : 2012 SCC OnLine SC 769 that the power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. based on the compromise is different from the power of compounding under Section 320 of CrPC. It was observed:

“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320, and the court is guided solel