The present criminal misc. application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.110 of 2018, ‘Surjeet Singh and others vs. State of Uttarakhand’ under Sections 307 & 323 of IPC, Police Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar along with the charge sheet and other consequential orders in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The parties were present in person in Court on 17.12.2018 as evident from the order-sheet.

2. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that applicant no.1, Surjeet Singh and Respondent No. 2, Lakhvinder Singh, the complainant have expired during the pendency of the present C-482 application.

3. In view thereof, the right to prosecute the present application, so far as applicant no.1, Surjeet Singh is concerned, does not survive. Accordingly, the present C-482 application stands abated qua applicant no.1. However, the present C-482 application shall continue at the instance of the surviving applicant.

4. During pendency of the present criminal misc. application, Compounding Application (CRMA No.11472 of 2018) has been filed on behalf of the applicant and respondent nos.3 and 4. Affidavits have been filed in support of the compounding application on behalf of the respondent no.3, Sukhwant Singh (injured) and respondent no.4, Swam Singh (injured). In the affidavits of respondent nos.3 and 4, who are injured persons, they have categorically stated that the parties have settled the matter amicably and the two injured persons no longer wants to keep the matter pending and also do not want to prosecute the applicant/accused person.

In their affidavits, the injured persons have also stated that they sustained injuries which are not fatal to life. Accordingly, the applicant and respondent nos. 3 and 4 have sought allowing of the compounding application by quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.110 of 2018.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that since Section 307 of IPC is also attracted in the present case, and the said offence is non-compoundable, the compounding application cannot be allowed.

6. However, in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of “B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another”, (2003) 4 SCC 675, “Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and another”, (2008) 9 SCC 650 and “Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab”, 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted the compounding of non-compoundable offence. Also, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of “Kedar Singh and three others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others” reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Utt 2275 has in identical circumstances permitted the compounding of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being extracted hereunder:-

“6. Learned counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below:

“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would