ORDER

The counsel for the petitioner and also for complainant appeared with the parties and they stated before the Court that they have entered into compromise and settled their dispute, therefore, the complainant does not want to prosecute the matter against the petitioner and as such, the criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioner in pursuance to their complaint registered vide FIR No.637/2021 at Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed.

2 . This petition is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner saying that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence by the police despite the fact that the complainant and the witnesses have not taken the name of present petitioner.

3. As per the case of prosecution, on 02.11.2021, the injured namely Ravi Kumar Prajapati S/o Late Ramdas Prajapati became unconscious as he sustained a gun shot injury, but he has not seen any of the accused persons, therefore, the statement of eye witness namely Smt. Parvati Prajapati, the mother of the present petitioner, was recorded and as such, Dehati Nalishi was written against unknown persons caused gun shot injury to the injured with an intention to kill him. Initially, the offence was registered vide Crime No.0/2021 and after investigation, the offence got registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. On 01.11.2021 at about 11:00 p.m. when the complainant/mother of injured/Ravi Prajapati visited the shop of her elder son namely Anil Prajapati, the injured/Ravi Prajapati was also present near the shop, then all of a sudden on two motorcycles few persons came and shot fire upon the injured due to which the injured sustained a gun shot injury on his back and immediately he fell down then he was brought to the hospital and thereafter offence was registered. 4. As per the statement of complainant, the present petitioner was falsely implicated by the police in the alleged crime because the complainant, who is the eye witness, has not seen the present petitioner causing any injury to the injured/Ravi Prajapati and even in the CCTV footage, the present petitioner was not identified. They repeatedly made complaints to the police that the persons who caused injury to the injured are not being arrested by the police, but no heed was paid to their voice. They have also given an affidavit in the Court that it is not the petitioner, but there are other persons who caused injury despite that nothing was done by the police.

5. According to the petitioner, though offence of 307 is not compoundable, but still this Court exercising the inherent power provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can compound the offence if parties entered into settlement.

6. In the present case, the parties have submitted their affidavits and stated before the Court that the present petitioner was not involved in the alleged crime and he has been falsely implicated. The parties were directed to record their statement before the Registry and as such, their statement was recorded in which the injured/Ravi Kumar Prajapati has stated that he entered into compromise with the present petitioner as he was not involved in the alleged crime, therefore, he does not want to prosecute the matter against him. The mother of the injured, who is the complainant, has also stated before the Registry that the present petitioner was not involved in the alleged crime and he has been falsely implicated by the police. The petitioner has also stated before the Registry that he has been falsely implicated and he has no role to play in the alleged crime.

7. The counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as for the complainant and submitted that the offence is non-compoundable and as such, merely because parties entered into compromise, permission for compounding the offence cannot be granted. 8. The counsel