JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Appellant Sukhvir Singh was convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five yeas along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- vide judgment and order dated 04.05.2005. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, present Criminal Appeal was filed by the convict-appellant. 2. A Compounding Application being CRMA No. 1263 of 2014 is filed by the parties to indicate that they have settled their dispute amicably. An affidavit is field by the appellant with the prayer to accept the compromise entered into between the injured and him. Affidavit is also filed by Ashish Kandari (injured) with the prayer that he does not want to proceed with the present criminal appeal, in as much as, their dispute is resolved with the intervention of a few elderly persons of the society. Informant/injured, who is present in person before this Court, duly identified by his counsel Ms. Sangeeta Bharadwaj, submitted that he is not willing to prosecute the accused-appellant. He seeks permission to compound the offence for which the appellant was convicted. Accused - appellant is also present before the Court. He is duly identified by his counsel Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate. 3. Perused the injury report of the injured Ashish Kandari, who sustained injuries, which were caused by sharp edged weapon. While the injuries no. 2 & 3 were simple in nature, injury no. 1 was grievous rendering serious threat to the life. 4. An offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The question is – whether the injured should be permitted to compound such an offence against the accused appellant or not? 5. Learned counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court on 6th December, 2012, in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory though Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)] in which the Hon’ble Apex Court, relying upon Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, permitted the injured to compound the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 6. 6. In the decision of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. Taking a leaf out of the book of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)], and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, this Court is of the view that the informant/injured Ashish Kandari should be permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against the accused-appellant in the interest of justice. 8. Learned counsel representing the State opposed the compounding application on the ground that compounding after the conviction under section 307 of IPC is not permissible. The said submission of learned counsel for the State is contrary to Sub-Section (5) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral (supra) and Gian Singh (supra). It will be useful to reproduce herein Sub-Section (5) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. as follows: “ 320 (5)- When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.” 9. Since the criminal appeal is pending before this Court against the conviction of the accused-appellant, therefore, injured is seeking leave of this Court to permit him to compound the offence, for which the accused-appellant has been convicted. Sub-Section (5) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is meant for those offences, which are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 302 Cr.P.C. It is true that Section 307 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., but the Hon’ble Apex Court has permitted compounding of such offence in the case of Dimpey Gujral (supra) and Gian Singh (supra). The contention of learned counsel for the State, therefore, falls to the ground in view of the above proposition of law. Learned counsel for the complainant/injured conceded that no case was proved against the appellant and the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed on merits also. 10. CRMA No. 1263 of 2014 is thus allowed. Injured is permitted to compound the offence complained of against the convict-appellant. As a consequence thereof, Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2003, is hereby set aside in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, i.e., injured and the accused-appellant. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is also set aside. Accused-appellant stands acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Appellant Sukhvir Singh is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. 11. The Criminal Appeal is thus disposed of in terms of compromise entered into between the parties. Let a copy of this Judgment along with lower court record be sent to the court below for compliance.