The court emphasized the nature of injury sustained and the absence of attempt to kill in considering the quashing of the FIR based on an amicable settlement.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 132 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. A Joint Compounding Application No. 1 of 2023 has been filed by Shri Pravesh Sharma, Pairokar of the petitioners and the respondent no.3 informant and respondent no.4 Pratesh Sharma along with their affidavits.

4. According to the FIR, on 22.04.2023 at about 8:00 late in the evening, the petitioner Gagandeep Singh alongwith other associates abused and attacked the father of the informant. He also took out pistol and loaded it. The father of the informant ran towards his house.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is a no injury case. In fact, it is a case, which does not state that any attempt was made to make fire on the father of the informant. It is submitted that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. They are living in peace and harmony now. The petitioners are in jail in this case.

6. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summed up the principles with regard to compounding of offence. In para 15.4 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles for compounding of offence under Section 307 IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in the same paragraph that “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.”

7. The FIR does not record that any attempt was made to kill the father of the informant. The FIR does not speak that the petitioners or any one has fired at the father of the informant. As stated, it is a no injury case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter may be decided on the basis of the settlement between the parties.

8. The petitioners are in jail. The petitioners have joined the proceedings through video conferencing, duly identified by their counsel. The respondent no.3, the informant and the respondent no.4, the victim are present in person before this Court duly identified by their counsel. The petitioners as well as the informant and the victim, all have accepted the compromise.

9. Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the informant as well the victim does not want to prosecute the case any further, this Court is of the view that this petition may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The FIR No. 132 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar is quashed.

11. The petitioners are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

12. Compounding Application No. 1 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly.