JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Tilak Raj Singh, learned AGA-I on behalf of the State and Sri Ramendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 4.

2. By means of the instant application the applicants are seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 26.03.2015 filed in respect of Case Crime No. 511/2014, under Sections 307, 323 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and proceedings of Session Trial No. 111/2015 titled State v. Sunni @ Nitish & Ors. pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional District and Session Judge, Ambedkar Nagar arising out of the aforesaid charge sheet on the ground that on 09.12.2022 a compromise has been entered into between the parties settling the dispute and now the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 do not want to pursue the matter.

3. The aforesaid case was initiated on the basis of an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 511/2014 lodged on 19.12.2014 by the opposite party no. 2 Ram Prasad against the petitioners stating that the petitioner no. 2 Narendra Kumar was raising construction of a wall on a land in dispute. The informant asked him not to raise any construction till the decision of the court whereupon the petitioner no. 1, who is son of petitioner no. 2, started beating the informant. When the informant's sons came to intervene, the petitioner no. 2 Narendra shot at the informant's son Sanjeev and another accused person shot at Umesh, another son of the informant. The petitioner no. 1 Sanni assaulted the informant with a rod causing injury in his head. The informant's youngest son Santosh was also shot at but he was not hurt.

4. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner no. 1 Sunni under Sections 323 and 307 IPC and against the petitioner no. 2 Narendra for offences under Section 30 of the Arms Act and on 08.11.2015, the learned court passed an order summoning the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 for being tried for the aforesaid offences.

5. The injury form of Sanjeev Kumar mentions a firearm entry wound on the right side of his chest and exit wound on the shoulder, however, his X-ray examination did not reveal any bonny injury.

6. The injury form of Umesh Kumar also mentions a firearm injury on the right side of his chest and his X-ray examination too did not reveal any bonny injury.

7. In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant had stated that the petitioner no. 2 had fired at his son Sunni and the petitioner no. 3 Sushil had fired a shot at his second son Umesh. Sunni had assaulted the informant with the iron rod causing injury on his head and a shot was fired towards his youngest son Santosh also he was not hurt.

8. The injured Sanjeev also stated that the petitioner no. 2 Narendra had fired a shot at him. The other injured Umesh Kumar stated that the petitioner no. 2 had fired a shot at Sanjeev and the petitioner no. 3 Sushil, son of Jamuna had fired a shot which hit him.

9. As per the averments made in support of the application, the parties have entered into a compromise. A copy of the compromise has been annexed with the affidavit, which does not bear any date. It has been mentioned in the compromise that the accused persons and the injured persons have entered into a compromise and the injured persons have pardoned the accused persons and they do not want any proceedings to continue against the accused persons.

10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the legal position regarding power of the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise, in the following words:-

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inheren