Order P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 9 of 2014 dated 16.1.2014 registered with Police Station Shimla District Shimla under Sections 307, 392, 506, 323, 325 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against petitioners on the basis of compromise executed inter se the parties. It is pleaded that false complaint filed against the petitioners and further pleaded that petitioners have joined the investigation and petitioners and complainant are neighbours and in order to keep harmonious relations inter the parties the parties have amicably settled the matter. Prayer for acceptance of petition sought. 2. Per contra response filed on behalf of the State of H.P. pleaded therein that on 10.1.2014 non-petitioner No.2 namely Babloo has registered a complaint with police station stating therein that petitioners have beaten him and also robbed a sum of ` 22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand only) and also attempted to kill him. It is pleaded that during course of investigation a sum of ` 11970/- (Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred seventy only) and weapons of offence i.e. two iron rods recovered and after completion of investigation challan filed in the court of learned Sessions Judge (Forest) Shimla and same is fixed for consideration upon charge. It is pleaded that prima facie criminal case is made out against the petitioners and petitioners have committed heinous offence and further pleaded that it is not in the public interest to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 3. Separate response filed on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 pleaded therein that non-petitioner No. 2 lodged FIR No. 9 of 2014 against the petitioners. It is pleaded that appropriate order be passed by Court in the interest of justice and fair play. 4. Court heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 and also heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.2 and also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in present case:- Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? 2. Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 with reasons. 6. Allegations against the petitioners are relating to heinous offences under Section 307 IPC i.e. attempt to murder and relating to robbery under Section 392 IPC. 5. Following points arise for determination in present case:- Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? 2. Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 with reasons. 6. Allegations against the petitioners are relating to heinous offences under Section 307 IPC i.e. attempt to murder and relating to robbery under Section 392 IPC. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court of India in JT 2014(4) SC 573 titled Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab that mere settlement between the parties would not be a ground to quash the proceedings. It was further held by Hon’ble Apex Court of India in ruling cited supra that in following cases proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (1) Murder. (2) Rape. (3) Dacoity. (4) Prevention of Corruption Act. (5) 307 IPC. Hon’ble Apex Court of India further held that proceedings should be quashed in following cases. (1) Commercial transaction. (2) Matrimonial relations. (3) Family dispute. (Also see JT 2003(3) SC 277 titled B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another. Also See JT 2012(9) SC 426 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another. Also see Latest HLJ 2014 H.P. 1248 titled Ravinder Singh @ Laddi and others vs. State of U.P. and another. 7. It was held in case reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872 titled Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava that while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. It was held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised carefully and with caution. It was also held that inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 8. In view of rulings given by Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra and in view of fact that FIR is registered under Section 307 IPC it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow the petition. Point No. 1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Final Order) 9. In view of findings on point No. 1 petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. File of learned trial Court be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial Court on 31st December 2015. Point No. 1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Final Order) 9. In view of findings on point No. 1 petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. File of learned trial Court be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial Court on 31st December 2015. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of present petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Petition is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.