Serious offences like attempt to murder cannot be quashed based on compromise; courts must consider the nature of injuries and societal impact.

Bharat Pathania ...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 : M/s Jiwan Lal Sharma & Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 93/24, dated 14.6.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 , 452, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), at Police Station, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. and the consequential proceedings pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in case No. 1/2025 as per

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

the compromise effected between the parties. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant’s husband used to quarrel with her on trivial matters. She left her matrimonial home on 17.5.2024. The petitioner and his parents visited her on 14.6.2024. The informant went to her room after taking the meals. The petitioner followed her and inflicted serious injuries upon the informant and her minor child. He threw the minor child fromu the first floor. The police registered the FIR and conducteod the investigation. The police submitted the final reportC after the completion of the investigation. The parties have settled the matter with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. The informant has withdrawn the divorce petition filed by her. The parties want to H maintain a cordial relationship with each other. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence the petition.

2. I have heard M/s Jiwan Lal Sharma and Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

3. Mr. Jiwan Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a minor quarrel had taken place between the parties. The parties have settled the matter amongst themselves. No case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to hardship for the parties. The parties want to reside happily with each other, as the infourmant does not want to proceed with the present matter afoter the compromise. Hence, he prayed that the present petitCion be allowed and the FIR be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties.

4. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the allegations in the FIR show that the petitioner had inflicted injuries using a knife on the neck, which is a vital part of the body. An offence of an attempt to commit murder cannot be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties.

Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

6. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. , (2025) 4 SCC 78 that an o punishable under Section 307 of IPC is a heinous offence and cannot be quashed based on the compromise; however, mere mention of Section 307 of IPC is not sufÏcient to prevent the Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction. It was observed at page 85:

20. Will the mere mention of Section 307IPC in the criminal proceedings force the court to adopt a hands-off approach when parties come forward with a settlement? In that event, what should be the duty of the court, and what are the tests to be applied to decide in which cases settlements would be accepted and in which cases they would not be?

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 th