JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. All the three petitions, titled above, being interconnected, are being taken up together and the common order is being passed herein-below. 2. Out of the first information report lodged on 28.12.2015, for the incident occurred on 27.12.2015 at 9 PM, two charge-sheets were submitted by the Investigating Officer; one was against Mr. Muni Kakkad for the offence of Section 307/34 IPC whereas another was against Mr. Kaushal Sharma, Mr. Varun Pandey and Mr. Vipul Singh for the offence of Section 307/34 IPC. Mr. Kaushal Sharma was further charge-sheeted for the offence of Section 25 Arms Act. 3. Out of those accused persons, Mr. Kaushal Sharma is still in caption while remaining three are on bail. 4. Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 18.6.2016 against Munni Kakkad whereas, as against remaining accused, cognizance was taken on 28.3.2016. 5. Even before levelling of the charge, the good sense prevailed between the rival groups, who are the residents of same vicinity. So, they have filed all the three petitions, titled above, along with the Compounding Applications (CRMA 1502/16, 1503/16 and 1504/16) seeking to quash the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings pending against them. 6. Informant Mr. Naresh Grover has signed the compounding deed and all four accused persons are also present, in person, before the Court. All the parties are identified by their respective learned counsel. 7. Although, Section 307 IPC as well as Section 25 Arms Act are non-compoundable one but these compounding terms, in my opinion, should be looked into in light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri.) 160, wherein, the relative scope of Sections 482 and 320 Cr.P.C. has been discussed. It was held that the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has the inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, but at the same time, before doing so, the High Court should analyze the social impact of the crime, in question, vis-à-vis its individual impact, as a decisive criterion for exercise of quashment power in such cases. Power of the High Court is distinct and different in its inherent jurisdiction than that of a Criminal Court while compounding the offences u/s 320 Cr.P.C. Where the parties have settled their dispute, it was held that it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case; the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. Thus, it was held that the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim’s family and offender have settled the dispute, because such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. 8. In the present scenario, on looking to the first information report, I find that no injury was caused to either of the parties; simply, the bald allegation of attempt to murder was there; fire was stated to opened but not a single bullet could hit any victim; all the persons are close neighbours; trial has not yet begun, much less, leveling of any charge even and lastly, the good sense has prevailed between the parties. 9. So, after judging the facts and circumstances of the case, in totality, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case wherein the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. So, I allow all the three compounding applications (CRMA 1502/16, 1503/16 and 1504/16) and quash the first information report as well as both the charge-sheets, under challenge. The entire proceedings pending before the court below, qua the applicants, pertaining to the questioned offences, are also quashed. 10. The above-titled three C482 petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.