The main legal point established is that the nature of offences and the settlement between the parties are crucial factors in determining the quashing of FIRs based on compromise.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.01 dated 01.01.2019, registered under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Majitha, Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

2. Status report by way of affidavit of Varinder Singh Khosa, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, North, Amritsar dated 23.02.2023 filed in Court is taken on record.

3. FIR in question was lodged by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

4. This Court vide order dated 13.02.2019 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report.

5. In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar has sent its report dated 08.04.2019 to this Court. With the report, he has also annexed the photocopies of the statement of complainant-respondent No.2 Ramesh Kumar, respondent No.3-Vishal Sharma, respondent No.4- Rakesh Kumar and statement of the petitioners, namely, Vishal @ Tidda, Manpreet Singh @ Maan and Sharanjeet Singh @ Sharan recorded on 06.04.2019. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar has concluded in its report that the compromise is genuine, voluntarily made, without any threat, coercion and out of free will of the parties. It is mentioned in the report that there were four accused arrayed in the FIR and the fourth accused Rahul @ Pilla is stated to have died during the pendency of the present case. It is further mentioned in the report that no accused has been declared as proclaimed offender.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the present FIR has been registered under Section 307 IPC, however, there are no injuries as alleged in the FIR and thus, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. He further submits that now the parties have compromised the dispute amicably and decided to live in peace.

7. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 has also affirmed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that there was no injury pertaining to the offence under Section 307 IPC and they have compromised the matter with their free will.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; has held as under:-

“31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) to (V) ............................

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open