Heinous and serious offences, including those under Section 307 IPC, cannot be quashed based on compromise, as they have a serious impact on society. The power to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences should not be exercised for offences with a serious impact on society, such as those under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Applicants Mahipal and his three co-accused persons have jointly filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of the Case Crime No. 456 of 2010, under Section 307 IPC registered at Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar which is subject matter of the Sessions Trial No. 170 of 2011, titled State vs. Mahipal and others, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, on the basis of the compromise dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure No. 4).

2. The above noted case was registered on the basis of the statement of Rishipal son of Kadam Singh, wherein he alleged that Mahipal, resident of his village keeps on breaching the ridge (Dol) of agricultural land and despite requesting him to not to do so, he tends to enter into a quarrel. My son Praveen Kumar is running a grocery shop and sons of Mahipal are also running a shop for selling hydro and acid. Today at around 3:00 PM, my son was on the shop and my nephews Sachin and Pradeep Kumar were also there when Mahipal alongwith his sons Neetu, Lalit, and father namely Sukhpal came to our shop, who alongwith Sukhpal exhorted that everyday you raise complaint regarding breach of ridge (Dol),so today we will eliminate you. Upon this all the four assailants who were carrying acid in a container, with an intention to kill my son Praveen and nephews Sachin, Pradeep threw acid upon them, and it resulted in serious injuries to all of them. This incident was witnessed by Baburam son of Paldu resident of Sikhreda and Ravindra son of Madan resident of Sarmujheda, Police Station Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar. At the time of incident, I was purchasing petrol from a petrol pump for my truck and on receiving the information, I reached at the spot and the witnesses told that the injured have been taken to the hospital. On these broad allegations, the above FIR was registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 307 IPC.

3. After registration of the case, the police carried out investigation and submitted the final report bearing Charge Sheet no. 118 of 2010 dated 8.5.2010 under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C against the applicants-accused for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that pursuant to the final report, the case was committed before the court of sessions for trial and during the pendency of the same, with the intervention of the respectable persons of the village, the parties have agreed to resolve the dispute and the compromise arrived at on 12.10.2023 is appended with this application as Annexure No. 4. Learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the compromise and further submitted that on the basis of this settlement, the cross case registered at the instance of applicants bearing Case Crime No. 456A of 2010, i.e. Sessions Trial No. 1109 of 2012, under Sections 323, 324, 326 is also settled and the parties do not want to contest the case against each other.

5. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in Mohabbat and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another (Application U/S 482 No.702 of 2019) and the decision in Hayyat and another vs. State of U.P. and another (Application U/S 482 No. -796 of 2019 and submitted that following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reportedin(2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings relating to the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. He prays that the petition be allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the applicants be quashed on the basis of the compromise.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 namely Rishipal has filed the counter affidavit which is taken on record.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has stated that indeed the parties have amicably settled the dispute and he has no objection in case, the pr