dated 17.07.2018 was placed on record before this Court. Thereafter, on 08.08.2018, Kasam son of Ayub and Mamen wife of Zuber, both the injured in the present case, appeared before this Court and made their statements on solemn affirmation. They stated on oath that the appellants are also residents of same village and they were closely related to each other. Even, the dispute between them and the appellants had been amicably settled and no ill-will and grudge was left in the minds of either of them on one hand and the appellants/convicts on the other hand. Moreover, they had entered into a compromise and they had no grievance in case both the appellants/convicts are granted any benefit by this Court. Even during the course of arguments today, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the parties are living peacefully in the village since the last several years and they may be allowed to compound the offences in the present case.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/injured, also submits that the parties had entered into a compromise and he has no objection in case appellants are ordered to be acquitted by this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of “Ramgopal and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh” reported as 2021 (4) RCR (Crl) Page 322 and the relevant extract of the said judgment has been reproduced below:-

“19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.

20.Having appraised the afore-stated para-meters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that-

Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature;

Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest;

Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed;

Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have burned their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s);

Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties;

Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive any ill- will and have no veng