Serious offences such as murder cannot be quashed based on compromise due to their public interest implications.

Malkiyat Singh @ Rinku ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others t ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

For Respondents No.2 to 6 : Ms. Gayatri, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 51 of 2018, dated 10.4.2018, registered at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR. It has been asserted that the dispute occurred due to a misunderstanding between the parties. An FIR

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

No. 52 of 2018, dated 10.4.2018, was registered by the opposite party. The parties have settled the matter to maintain cordial relations between them. Hence, the petition for quashing the FIR. 2. The police filed a status report asserting that the informant, Ankush Sharma, was removing the trolley from the tractor on 9.4.2018 at 5.45 PM when Malkiyat Singh started abusing him and inquired from him as to why he (Ankush) had stopped driving his Tractor. Malkiyat Singh took out a spade from the trolley and inflicted injury on Sanjay Kumar’s head. Sanjay Kumar was taken to the hospital. The Medical OfÏcer stated that the injurie s were grievous and dangerous to life. Sanjay Kumar succumbed to his injuries subsequently, and Section 302 of the IPC was added. The charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. 33 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution, out of whom 04 have been examined. Hence, the status report.

3. The statements of informant Ankush Sharma and Sudesh Kumari, mother of Sanjay Kumar, were recorded on 8.5.2025, in which they stated that the matter had been compromised with the accused voluntarily, and they had no objection in case the FIR is quashed based on the compromise between the parties.

4. I have heard Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learnHed counsel for the petitioner/accused, Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent No.1-State and Ms. Gayatri, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6.

5. Mr. Divya Raj rSingh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the parties have settled the matter. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the present proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

6. g Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate iGeneral, for respondent No.1-State, submitted that Sanjay Sharma has succumbed to the injuries. The offence is heinous and cannot be quashed based on the compromise. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. Ms. Gayatri, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6, submitted that the informant had no objection in case the present petition is allowed and the FIR is ordered to be quashed.

8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

9. In the present case, Sanjay Kumar hasH succumbed to injuries, and Section 302 of the IPC was added to the list of offences.

10. It was laid down by th e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. , (2025) 4 SCC 78 that an o punishable under Section 302 of IPC cannot be compounded as it affects the public at large. It was observed:

21. In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan [ State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan , (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706], after discussing the ratio in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [ Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and other judgments, this Court held : (Laxmi Narayan case [ State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan , (2019) 5 SCC 688 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri)