The court emphasized the distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offenses, considering the nature of injuries, the impact on society, and the antecedents of the accused in determining the quashment of criminal proceedings.

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.288/2018 at Police Station- University, Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 452, 323, 307, 506 of IPC and sections 3 (2) (v), 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Prosecution story, in nutshell, is that is complainant Rahul Jatav lodged a report on 15.6.2018 and alleged therein that petitioner came to his house and entered in his house by abusing him in the name of caste and started beating him by means of lathi, therefore, the complainant sustained lathi injury on his head and when complainant's father and mother came to rescue him, petitioner beaten them by kicks and fists. On the aforesaid basis, FIR has been registered.

3. Pursuant to the said FIR, criminal law was set in motion and petitioner was arrested. Thereafter the petitioner and the complainant have jointly filed application under Section 320 (2) of the Cr.P.C which was registered as I.A. No.5894/2019 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, 452, 307 of IPC and sections 3 (2) (v), 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Caste and Schduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not compoundable.

5. It has been averred by the petitioner in the petition that intention to cause death cannot be inferred from the prosecution version. The medical report of injured also does not disclose any injury dangerous to life. As such, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner 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 petitioner 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. Perused the record.

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 petitioner and the complainant 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 at the bar the only question that falls for determination is whether the prayer for composition of the offence under Section 307, IPC could be allowed having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties. Our answer is in the negative. This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled that offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be compounded even if there is any settlement between the complainant on the one hand a