The distinction between compounding offences and quashing proceedings is crucial; quashing may be warranted even for non-compoundable offences if a settlement exists.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated 19/01/2023 in Application under S.482 CrPC No. 1315 of 2023 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the said order, the High Court, by holding that a case involving allegation of Commission of offence under S.307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC ') cannot be compounded, dismissed the application under S.482 CrPC, seeking quashment of proceedings. Five of the eight appellants before the High Court - Naushey Ali, Khushboo Ali, Khursheed, Raza Ali and Nanhe - are before this Court in Appeal. The other three have passed away.

3. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.
i) The appellants and respondent No.2 Mahmood S/o late Abdul Lateef are residents of the same village - Barwara Khas, District Moradabad, U.P.
ii) With respect to an occurrence on 11/08/1991, it was the appellants' party which first lodged Case Crime No. 248/91 on the said day itself against the respondent No.2, his father and others for offences punishable under S.147, S.148, S.149, S.307, S.325, S.506, S.323 and S.504 of IPC .
iii) On 27/08/1991, Case Crime No. 248 - A / 91 was registered by Abdul Lateef, on behalf of respondent No.2, in FIR No. 141 of 1991. The sections, violations of which were alleged were, 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 506, 323 and 504 . This FIR was registered against all eight persons, including the appellants.
iv) The gravamen of the allegation was that the appellants' party wanted to pass the irrigation water through the field of the complainant by forcibly digging the land. When it was resisted by the complainant party, the appellants' party abused them in filthy language and assaulted Mahmood S/o Abdul Lateef with lathi and iron bars. When Mahmood ran to save his life, Abdul Waris (since deceased) opened fire from his rifle.
v) According to the complainant, on hearing the sound, Munnan S/o Mangu and Vilayat S/o Inayat came and saved them. Thereafter, they reached the Police Station to lodge a report, when they found that the appellants' party was already present at the Police Station. A complaint was lodged by Mahmood but the thumb impression on his behalf was put by his father Abdul Lateef.
vi) On 07/09/1991, after investigation, the police filed a final report No. 50/91 stating that the complaint was a false complaint. It was recorded that during the course of investigation, from the statements of witnesses, it was found that the case has been falsely registered by the complainant as a counter blast to FIR No. 248/91 lodged by the appellants' party.
vii) However, on 05/09/1992, the police report was rejected by the VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, who summoned the appellants and the three others - Abdul Waris, Rasheed and Maseeta (all since deceased), for trial, for offences punishable under S.147, S.148, S.149, S.307, S.324, S.325 and S.323 of and issued warrants.
viii) Aggrieved, the appellants challenged the order dated 05/09/1992 of the trial Court before the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1318 of 1992, wherein an interim order was passed staying the order of 05/09/1992.
ix) The criminal revision was ultimately dismissed on 03/04/2015 after it remained pending for nearly twenty - three years. It is the case of the appellants' party that the dismissal of the criminal revision was not known to them till October, 2022, when they received summons from the trial Court.
x) It appears that, in the meantime, due to the intervention of the elderly person