High Court cannot quash non-compoundable offences based on a compromise when they have serious implications for society; public interest mandates prosecuting such violations.

ORDER :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. The petitioners herein by an application U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. have sought for to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them in Bari Ramchandrapur P.S. Case No. 13(7) dated 14.02.2007 for commission of offences U/Ss. 452/379/427/323/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 9 (B) of I.E. Act and 127(A) of R.P. Act on the ground of settlement dispute amicably amongst themselves.

2. The facts in synopsis are that on 14.02.2007 at about 9 A.M. in the morning, the petitioners called the informant to join in a political rally of Congress party but the informant replied that he is a sweet stall owner and should not join in any rally and being annoyed, the petitioners threw away some sweets (Rasogola) kept in two cauldron (Kadei) costing approximately Rs.2,000/- and broke away twenty five numbers of glass tumblers and also broke the Asbestos roof as well as damaged other goods of the sweet stall. They also took away cash of Rs.700/-to 800/- approximately and when the informant protested, they slapped and gave fist blows to him. The petitioners thereafter called upon Kailash Mallik(Kai) and Sarat Parida in loud voice to come immediately with crude bombs to kill the informant and on such call, the aforesaid two persons, accordingly, came with crude bombs and threw the bombs from the road aiming at the informant who concealed himself behind a pillar of the stall as a result his uncle Sanatan Sahoo sustained injury on his eye lid and uncle Banamali Sahoo sustained injury on his knee and he also sustained injury on his leg and right hand by the pebbles of the bombs. At the time of occurrence, the father, brother and two uncles of the informant were present at the place of occurrence i.e. inside the sweet stall of the informant.

Basing on the report(F.I.R.) of the informant, Bari Ramchandrapur P.S. Case No. 13(7) of 2007 was registered which was investigated into, resulting in placing of charge sheet against the petitioners and another for commission of offences U/Ss. 452/379/427/323/307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 9 (B) of I.E. Act and 127(A) of R.P. Act and cognizance of aforesaid offences was taken, where after on commitment to the Court of Sessions, C.T. Case No. 13 of 2015 was registered. Moreover, N.B.Ws. were issued against the petitioners and another co-accused on 17.05.2018 and now the case stands posted to 19.09.2022 for production of accused persons.

3. In order to get rid of the criminal case, the petitioners have filed the present CRLMC U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding instituted upon them on the grounds,inter alia, settlement of dispute with the informant by intervention of local gentries and well wishers by arraying the informant and State as opposite parties.

In response to the notice of the CRLMC, the opposite party No.2 has entered appearance through his learned counsel and filed counter affidavit admitting about the settlement of the dispute amongst them.

4. In course of hearing of the CRLMC, learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the decision in Yogendra Yadav & Others Vrs. State of Jharkhand; A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 3055 submits that since the parties have settled up their disputes by intervention of local gentries, there should not be any bar to quash the present Cr