JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No. 200 dated 23.06.2019 under Sections 148, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sadar Jhajjar, and the consequential proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at, between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties belong to the same village and have, through the intervention of respectables of their community, resolved their differences amicably. It is contended that the dispute arose from a personal and localised altercation over a plot of land, and the continuation of criminal proceedings would therefore serve no purpose in the light of the compromise annexed as Annexure P-2. While drawing the attention of this Court to the compromise and also the willingness of the complainant to withdraw the complaint, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR, urging this Court to consider the amicable resolution as a sufficient basis for accepting their prayer.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Karan Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State and Mr. Davinder Kaliraman, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. to 4.

5. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR are of a grave and heinous nature. It has been emphasized that a perusal of the FIR reveals that the petitioners, armed with firearms, fired upon the complainant and his family with the intent to kill. Specific reference has been made by the learned State counsel to the injury caused to the brother of the complainant, who sustained a bullet wound to the chest, a vital part of the body, reflecting the gravity of the offence.

6. Learned State counsel has argued that offences of such nature have far-reaching societal implications and cannot be treated as mere disputes between private parties. The learned State counsel has submitted that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS cannot be invoked to quash proceedings in cases involving heinous crimes merely because the parties have reached a compromise

7. Having carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the State, as well as the material on record, including the FIR in question annexed as Annexure P-1, this Court is of the view that the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise is bereft of any merit for the reasons to follow:

(i) The FIR (Annexure P-1) prima facie discloses grave allegations. A perusal of the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations that the petitioners, armed with firearms, fired upon the complainant and his family members with the intent to kill, resulting in grievous injuries, including a chest injury to the brother of the complaint. As per the learned State counsel, there is medical corroboration to the allegations levelled in the FIR in question. Such allegations, if true, constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC/109 of the BNS, which is classified as a heinous offence.

(ii) The nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR-use of firearms, the intent to kill, and injuries caused to vital parts of the body-places the offence beyond the category of private or personal disputes. Crimes of such gravity are not just offences against the individual but also against the State and society at large.

(iii) Hon'ble the Supreme Court has, in multiple pronouncements, laid down the scope and limits of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS, with respect to quashing criminal proceedings based on a compromise. The relevant principles were comprehensively elucidated in State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Lakshmi Narayan and others 2019 (5)