JUDGMENT

N.S. Dhanik, J. - The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the first information report dated 29.03.2021 being FIR No. 186 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 & 506 IPC, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Now, parties have filed the joint compounding application stating therein that they have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now the respondent nos. 3 & 4 do not have any grievance with the petitioner. In support of compounding application, (IA No. 1/2021), affidavits have been filed by the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 & 4.

3. Petitioner is in jail. On 22.04.2021, petitioner's sister Smt. Preeti Jain, who has been authorized by the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3-Ramji Sahni (informant/injured) and Vigan Kumar Sahni (father of respondent no. 4/injured-Km. Kanchan, as Km. Kanchan is minor) were present before this Court through Video Conferencing, duly identified by their respective counsels.

4. Compounding application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 and 4. It has been further stated by the parties that now they have amicably settled their dispute. Therefore, learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the impugned FIR be quashed in terms of the compromise.

5. Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application on the ground that Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable.

6. Learned Counsel for the accused petitioners contended that all the injuries are simple in nature and not dangerous to life. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein it has been observed as under:

"Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are 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 to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

7. Needless to say, non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded. But considering the nature of injuries, above authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. & Ors, (2008) 9 SCC 677; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675, and in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, where there is a genuine compromise and there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and continuance of the proceedings, after the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, would be a f