Serious offences like those under Sections 307, 452, and 323 IPC cannot be quashed based on compromise, and the court's discretion to quash criminal cases should be exercised on objective guiding principles and criteria.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy raised in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that complainant Pardeep Kumar was residing in Dubai. He came to India on 21.10.2009 to enjoy his vacations for one month. As ill luck would have been, on 6.11.2009 at about 7/8 P.M., as soon as he was watching TV alongwith his parents, in the meantime, accused Jitender son of Ram Avtar entered in their drawing room. He also called his brother and co-accused Mahesh Kumar and one another accused Shree Bhagwan alias Dara, inside the drawing room, who were standing outside the gate. Some altercation took place between Sunita, wife of the complainant and Mahesh Kumar, brother of accused Jitender. Mahesh Kumar was stated to be suddenly got angry and slapped Sunita PW.

2. The prosecution claimed that as soon as the complainant stood up to rescue his wife Sunita, in the meantime, accused Shree Bhagwan alias Dara put red chilly powder in his (complainant) eyes. Thereafter, accused Mahesh Kumar inflicted scissors blows, which hit on left side of his chest and inflicted second injury on left side of stomach (vital parts) of the complainant. Third injury inflicted by him was on his finger. Then accused Jitender also gave slaps and fist blows to the complainant. When father and wife of the complainant came to rescue him, thereafter, all the accused decamped from the place of occurrence, after giving threat to them with dire consequences of elimination.

3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that first of all, accused Mahesh Kumar slapped the wife of the complainant. Thereafter, accused Shree Bhagwan put red chilly powder in the eyes of the complainant, while accused Mahesh Kumar repeatedly inflicted injuries with the scissors on vital parts of the complainant and accused Jitender also gave slaps and fist blows to him (complainant) after entering into his house. Immediately thereafter, his father arranged a vehicle and took the complainant in an injured condition to Government Hospital, Rewari for treatment, where the doctor, after examining and keeping his serious condition in focus, advised to take him to some hospital at Delhi. Thereafter, he was admitted and treated in Paras Hospital at Gurgaon. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.180 dated 7.11.2009 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 307, 323 and 452 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Rampura, District Rewari.

4. At the very outset, instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court, the petitioners straightway filed earlier petition bearing CRM No.M-22355 of 2010 for quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise, but after arguing for some time, their learned counsel intended to withdraw the petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, by virtue of order dated 22.9.2010. After dismissal of first petition, now the petitioners have again filed the present second petition for quashing the same FIR (Annexure P1) on the basis of same compromise.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition.

6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that although the offences under sections 307 and 452 IPC are not compoundable, but still the FIR deserves to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well, wherein it was concluded as under (para 30):-

“The power under Section 482 of the