( 1 ) CRL. W. 154/98 and Crl. M. 1152/98 This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 25/98, registered at P. S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on the complaint of respondent No. 3 and the proceedings taken subsequent thereto including the challan. ( 2 ) THE FIR was registered on the statement made by respondent No. 3 Abdul Hanan regarding incident dated 10. 1. 1997. It was stated that his father is a diplomat in the Afghan Embassy. About 6-7 months back, their car, which was parked outside their house was burnt by somebody. One person known to him, who was also a resident of Afghan used to come from the Ramesh Market, Garhi to meet the Afghani person. He stated that on 10. 1. 1998 at about 6 P. M. , he alongwith his cousin Javed (Respondent No. 2) went to Ramesh Market to make enquiry into the burning of car. The petitioner met them. On enquiry the petitioner started abusing them and suddenly took out a knife and assaulted them, as a result thereof they received injuries. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the above statement, FIR for offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was registered, which offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 4 ) IT is stated in the petition that the parties bail from Afghanistan and with the intervention of common friends and relatives, they have amicably resolved their differences. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have also expressed their desire not to pursue their complaint. This petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings and. . . . . . . . . . the parties to compound the offence, as the offence is not compoundable. Compromise deed has also been filed on record alongwith the affidavits of the petitioner as well as of respondents No. 2 and 3, who admitted the factum of compromise and expressed their desire not to pursue their with complaint. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court. Compromise deed has also been filed on record alongwith the affidavits of the petitioner as well as of respondents No. 2 and 3, who admitted the factum of compromise and expressed their desire not to pursue their with complaint. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court. In the case of Devender Kumar versus State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1987 (2) SC 361, permission to compound the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code, which is not compoundable, was granted, in view of the reasons that the parties had reconciled their differences voluntarily, which reconciliation had been arrived at by the intervention of well wishers and parties hailed from the same locality. In the case of Mahesh Chand and another versus State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111 , prayer was for compounding of offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code Accused were acquitted by the trial Court but were convicted by the High Court. Parties had prayed before the Supreme Court to treat the case as special case and grant permission to compound. In the facts of that case and that one of the accused was a lawyer practising in lower Courts and the fact that counter case arising out of the same transaction had already been compromised, the Supreme Court granted permission to compound the offence. ( 6 ) FOLLOWING the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the two cases aforementioned and for the reason that the parties are Afghan Nationals, who have amicably settled their differences and want to live in peace without any ill-will or bad blood and respondents No. 2 and 3 do not wish to pursue their complaint, we allow the petition and grant the requisite permission to compound. Petitioner is present in person. Respondents 2 and 3 are also present who have been identified by their counsel in the presence of the Investigating Officer. The admit the factum of compromise. Respondents 2 and 3 say that they do not want any action as regards the incident of 10. 1. 1998. Resultantly, the proceedings pending in the Court below, arising out of FIR No. 25 of 1998 for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi including the FIR are quashed and set aside. ( 7 )