JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.58/2011, whereby the trial court has refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 382/149 IPC on the ground that all these offences are not compoundable. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.10.2004, complainant-Major Singh submitted an oral report to the Police Station, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh to the effect that an agricultural land of his mother-in-law Prasani Kaur widow of Thana Singh is situated in Chak No.79RW and he cultivates the said land. He alleged that sons of brother-in-law of Prasani Kaur want to grab the said land. On the same day at about 7:00 A.M., the complainant along with his mother-in-law Prasani Kaur and her nephew - Shamsher Singh, brother Chud Singh and her servant Harnam Singh as well as the complainant's wife Jasvinder Kaur went to field with combine for harvesting the crop. At about 9:00 A.M., Jalor Singh, Amar Singh @ Kapa, Major Singh, Iqbal Singh, Harvinder Singh, Iqbal Singh son of Amar Singh, Singara Singh and ten other unknown persons armed with Gandasis, Kapey and Lathis, came to their filed; Jalor Singh assaulted Harnam Singh by Gandasa on his head, left hand and on other parts of his body and all the assailants were warning that if somebody would poke his nose, they would kill him, and they broke the doors of the Kotha situated in the field. They took away the tractor trolley bearing No. RRC-4074 of the complainant party, in which, grains weighing 55 quintal were loaded. They also took some other items. The complainant has also stated that he got the injured Harnam Singh admitted in the Government Hospital, Tibbi. 3. On the aforesaid complaint, the Station House Officer of Police Station, Tibbi registered the FIR No.273/2004 for the offences punishable under section 382, 447, 427, 323, 147, 148, 149 IPC. The police, has started investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR and after investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the competent court for the offences punishable under sections 307, 326, 382, 447, 427, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149 IPC. 4. The police, has started investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR and after investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the competent court for the offences punishable under sections 307, 326, 382, 447, 427, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149 IPC. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of the compromise, the parties have filed two separate applications before the trial court on 10.12.2014 in Sessions Case No.58/2011, one for attesting the compromise for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149, 382/149 IPC and another for the offences punishable under sections 447, 323/149, 427/149 IPC. The trial court, vide order dated 10.12.2014 has attested the compromise arrived at between the parties for the offences punishable under sections 447, 323/149, 427/149 IPC and acquitted them from the said offences, however, refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149, 382/149 IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the trial, all the independent witnesses have turned hostile. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that now the land dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and the parties have also filed compromise in the revenue court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to 4 has verified the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and contended that the respondent No.2 to 4 do not want to press the allegations levelled in the FIR against the petitioners and have no objection if impugned order to the extent of refusal of attesting the compromise for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 382/149 IPC is set aside and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners be terminated. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the dispute between the parties have already been settled and today also learned counsel for the private respondents has categorically submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 do not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioners as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426 , has held as below:- “57. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426 , has held as below:- “57. 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.” 9. In the instant case, it appears that the incident took place between the parties in relation to some agricultural land. The petitioners are claiming right over the land, whereas Parsani Devi is also claiming right over the said agricultural land. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, when Prasani Devi, Major Singh and other persons reached the agricultural field on the day of the incident, the petitioners have attacked them and assaulted the complainant party in which Harnam Singh received grievous injuries, which were dangerous to life. However, during the trial, majority of the eye-witnesses has turned hostile except the complainant and the injured. It is also admitted by both the parties that the dispute regarding the agricultural land has now been settled between them and a compromise has also been filed in the concerned revenue court, where the revenue litigation is going on between the parties in relation to the very agricultural land. 10. This Court is of the opinion that when the majority of the eye-witnesses has turned hostile and the agricultural dispute between the parties has been settled amicably, there is a very little possibility of the petitioners having being convicted for the offences for which they are facing trial. 11. 10. This Court is of the opinion that when the majority of the eye-witnesses has turned hostile and the agricultural dispute between the parties has been settled amicably, there is a very little possibility of the petitioners having being convicted for the offences for which they are facing trial. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the proceedings pending before the trial court in Sessions Case No.58/2011 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 382/149 IPC can be quashed. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the proceedings pending before the trial court in Sessions Case No.58/2011 against the petitioners for the offences under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 382/149 IPC are quashed.Stay petition is disposed of.Petition Allowed. *******