The court emphasized the non-compoundable nature of certain offences, the societal impact, and the importance of considering the seriousness of the offences before quashing proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victim(s).

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured have compromised the matter, and affidavit of Gurwinder Singh is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioner(s)came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the injured have been impleaded as respondent(s).

4. On 15-3-2022, the victims Gurwinder Singh (R-2) and Balwinder Singh (R-3) stated before the JMIC Amritsar that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 21-3-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. The State's counsel has severely opposed this compromise and seeks dismissal of the petition because of the heinous nature of the offence.

6. It shall be appropriate to refer to the relevant portions of affidavit of Gurwinder Singh, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, which reads as follows:

'[2]. That now with the intervention of the respectable persons and relatives, the matter has been compromised between me and above mentioned Harpreet Singh @ Ajay, Sajan Singh and Gobinda only and we have decided to burry all the disputes.

[3]. That I accepted the factum of compromise and do not want to proceed with the above mentioned FIR against Harpreet Singh @ Ajay, Sajan Singh and Gobinda. Furthermore, I have no objection in case the Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh quashes the above said FIR against the above named persons.'

7. The injured appeared before the Court of JMIC Amritsar, and on 15-3-2022, made statement on oath, relevant of which reads as follows:

'The compromise is genuine, voluntary, without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and same is out of our free will and now we want to live in brotherhood, peace and harmony in future as we are residents of Jandiala. Now, we have no objection if the FIR and all consequent proceedings may be quashed against accused mentioned above.'

8. A perusal of the contents of the affidavit and victims' statements about compromise state that they entered into a compromise to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony as they are residents of Jandiala. However, without the background of friendship, the closeness of family, strong bonds, or being in relations, this explanation is meaningless to permit compounding of a heinous offence punishable under section 307 IPC, where the sentence can run to imprisonment for life.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING UNDER SECTION 307 IPC:

9. In Ram Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 2 SCC 149, Supreme Court holds, The appellants, who are the accused and the complainant, Shri Ram, who was the person injured as a result of firing, have appeared before us and stated that they wish to compound the offence. The offence for which both the appellants have been convicted is one under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by Shri Ram, we think that the proper offence for which the appellants should have been convicted was under Section 324 read with Section 34. Shri Ram received only one injury on the shoulder and that was also in the nature of simple hurt. We would, therefore, convert the conviction of the appellants to one under Section 324 read with Section 34. Since the parties belong to the same village and desire to compound the offence, we think, in the larger interest of peace and harmony between the parties and having regard to the nature of the injury, that it would be proper to allow the