The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties, especially in cases where the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of the case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused.

N.K. JAIN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The accused-petitioner, Mr. Tara Rai, son of late Deo Kumar Rai, has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr. P.C.) for quashment of G.R. Case No. 17 of 2013 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, registered on the basis of Challan filed against him under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC), on the basis of compromise between the accused-petitioner and the victim, who is respondent No. 2, Bijay Rai, son of late Deo Kumar Rai.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that on 02.10.2012 an FIR No. 125(10) 12 was lodged at Police Station Sadar, District East by the Station House Officer, Sadar Police Station, on the basis of oral report given by one Sabita Rasaily, wife of Binod Rasaily, wherein it was mentioned that one Tara Rai has assaulted his brother Bijay Rai with machete (bamphok) inflicting grievous bodily injuries and he is at present lying in a pool of blood in the room of a RCC building owned by the accused. On the basis of this information, the FIR was registered under Section 326 IPC and investigation was commenced. During the investigation of the case, the statements of accused, victim and other witnesses were recorded, the victim was also medically examined.

4. After completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East & North Sikkim at Gangtok on 01.12.2013. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and directed to register the case and also issued summon to accused. The matter is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East & North Sikkim at Gangtok.

5. Accused-petitioner as well as victim, respondent No. 2, both are real brothers as both are sons of late Deo Kumar Rai. They entered into a compromise and the present petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner for quashment of criminal case pending before the trial Court on the basis of compromise. In support of the petition, the petitioner has annexed a copy of compromise in the shape of affidavit of victim, respondent No. 2, Bijay Rai.

6. The submissions of learned counsel for petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 are that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 both are real brothers. There was no previous enmity between them. The victim is the elder brother and is jobless and the accused, who is younger brother of victim is a casual employee in the Government and is supporting his elder brother, victim and also their mother. It is also submitted that both are living in one house. The incident took place all of sudden while both of them were taking liquor and now they have realized their mistake and they have settled their dispute and have filed compromise with this petition for quashment of charge-sheet filed against the petitioner. He also submitted that offence under Section 324 IPC is not compoundable as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. but this Court has ample powers to quash the proceedings of criminal case on the basis of compromise between the parties. He submitted that the incident in the present case took place in the private house of the parties and in fact it was only a family dispute, therefore, proceedings of present case under Section 324 IPC can be quashed by this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to secure the ends of justice. In support of their submission, the learned counsel relied upon a latest decision of larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

7. Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the injury in the present case was inflicted by sharp edged weapon by the accused on the person of injured, which is clear from injury report prepared by the Medical Officer. Howeve