Serious and heinous offences against society, such as those under Section 307 of the IPC, cannot be quashed solely on the basis of compromise.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. - The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.106, dated 8th April, 2020 under Sections 353, 333, 307, 188, 186 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, ('IPC') Section 25 of the Arms Act,1959 and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 registered at Police Station Sadar, Jind. The quashing is sought on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties on 17th November, 2020. The annexures to the petition are the FIR, copy of compromise, affidavit of the complainant supporting the compromise and copy of Aadhaar Card.

3. The FIR was at the instance of Deepak. A barricade was erected near Arya Vidhya Mandir School on Behbalpur Road at Ghimana. At about 3-4 P.M. on 07.04.2020, Sandeep and Deepak resident of village Ghimana came on a motorcycle, they were not wearing the masks and were wandering without any reason. The complainant and Manjeet asked them about their movement and non wearing of masks as there was pandemic situation. They threatened that in case they are stopped, the complainant would be shot down. On the same day at about 9:00 P.M., a Splendor motorcycle driven by Manjeet came at the barricade, Sunil @ Sunila was pillion rider. The motorcyclists asked the complainant complainant as to why Sandeep and Deepak were stopped. Sunil @ Sunila fired a shot with the pistol, the bullet hit the complainant on left corner of the chest. The complainant fell down, thinking that he is dead, the motorcyclists fled the scene. They also fired shorts in front of house of Amit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties are resident of same village and are having common ancestors, they have compromised the matter, hence FIR should be quashed. He further submits that there is a bleak chance of conviction and trial would be a futile exercise. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 .

5. Learned State counsel opposes the quashing of FIR. It is stated that complainant was shot on the left side of the chest. The complainant was shot at as he asked one Sandeep and Deepak to follow the restrictions imposed due to Covid-19 situation.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the matter has been compromised, he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

7. The glaring fact is that merely asking for wearing the masks or to restrict the movement due to pandemic was good enough reason for using a fire arm. The injury was inflicted on left side of the chest of the complainant. After almost five hours from stopping of Sandeep and Deepak at the barricade, the firing incident took place, it was a planned attack and not a reaction at the spur of the moment.

8. It is not merely a dispute between two individuals but an offence against the society. It would be important to note that entire country is still fighting with the pandemic and cooperation of each and every citizen is necessary. The petitioner not only made an attempt on the life of the complainant but endangered lives of other by violating pandemic restrictions. The person who was lending his duties to fight with pandemic (covid warrior) was attacked with a fire arm.

9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of compromise there is bleak chance of conviction, cannot be a sole consideration for quashing. The FIR cannot be mechanically quashed on the basis of the compromise.

10. The Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and another, 2019 5 SCC 570 , held as under:-

"18.1 Therefore, the said decision may be applicable in a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties; the parties have resolved the dispute; that the offence is not against the society at large and/or the same may not have social impact; the dispute is a family/matrimonial dispute etc. Th