The legal principle established is that heinous and serious offenses, such as those under section 307 IPC, cannot be quashed based on compromise, considering their impact on society and the nature of the offenses.

JUDGMENT

S.A. Dharmadhikari, J. - This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of FIR registered as Crime No.287/2018 at Police Station- University, Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 307, 323, 506, 34 of IPC on the basis of compromise.

2. Prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 15.6.2018 the petitioners pull the water pipe line of Mohalla, at that time complainant came and tried to stop them then petitioners abused him and thereafter they started beating complainant with Lathi and Farsa, due to which he sustained injuries on the head and other parts of the body. On the aforesaid basis, FIR has been registered.

3. Pursuant to the said FIR, criminal law was set in motion and petitioners were arrested. Thereafter the petitioners and the complainant have jointly filed application under Section 320 (2) of the Cr.P.C which was registered as I.A. No.5893/2019 stating that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they are not inclined to prosecute the matter any more.

4. This Court, vide order dated 3.9.2019, had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording their statements and for verification of factum of compromise. The Principal Registrar has submitted his report on 11.9.2019 itself and verified the compromise. The Principal Registrar noted that according to Section 320 of Cr.P.C. the offence under sections 323, 506, 34 of IPC are compoundable, but section 294 and 307 of IPC are not compoundable.

5. Learned Counsel on their behalf submitted that intention to cause death cannot be inferred from the prosecution version. The medical report of the injured also does not disclose any injury dangerous to life. In the x-ray report no fracture was found on injured. Therefore, looking to the nature of injury, it cannot be said that the offence under section 307, IPC is prima facie made out. To buttress his contention, reliance has been placed on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014)6 SCC 466 ) , wherein it has been held that it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. and medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. It is submitted that in the MLC, the doctor has not opined that the injury received by injured was dangerous to life. As such, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners under section 307 of the IPC is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same are, therefore, liable to be set aside in the wake of compromise entered into between the parties.

6. Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the injured has sustained grievous injury. It is submitted that section 307 and its illustrations nowhere suggest that the injury should be dangerous to life to constitute an offence under section 307, IPC. What is required to be seen is the intention of the accused and in the instant case the intention of the petitioners to kill the injured is well discernible. It is submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, no case is made out for quashment of proceedings under section 307 of the IPC on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

7. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

8 . The sole question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the proceedings under section 307 of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between petitioners and the complainant & injured by invoking inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ?

9. To address upon the above question, it would be worthwhile to advert to the legal position in this regard. The Supreme Court in the case of Gulab Das and others Vs. State of M.P. Reported in AIR 2012 SC 888 has held as under :

'7 . In the light of the submissions made a