JUDGMENT : K.K. Sonawane, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, matter is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The point in controversy in both these petitions are centered on the issue of quashing the Criminal Proceeding in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground of compromise arrived at between the accused and complainant. Therefore, these two allied petitions are decided on merit by this common judgment. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 615 OF 2018. 3. The petitioners preferred the present petition to quash the criminal proceeding Crime No. 273 of 2017 registered against them under Sections 307, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act at Dhule City P.S. On 1.12.2017. Facts leading to present petition are that :- 4. The First informant - Kanhaiyalal Peshuram Arora, filed report that on 30.11.2017 in the night hours at about 9.30 to 10.00 p.m., he accompanied with his wife Rinka were proceeding towards the bridge from School No. 58 located in Samata Nagar. He had seen the petitioner - Yogesh Chandralal Bajaj sitting near the school. The petitioner - Yogesh started hurling abuses to the complainant. There was bitter exchange of words in between them. In the argument, the petitioner Yogi Bajaj attacked the complainant Kanhaiyalal on the right hand wrist by iron rod and caused fracture injuries. The petitioner - Yogesh called other petitioners - Honu Sundarlal Bajaj, Banti Honu Bajaj, Deepak Sablani and Dhabu Chandralal Bajaj, by making phone call. The other petitioners thronged at the spot and assaulted the complainant Kanhaiyalal and his brothers Shashi and Santosh, who arrived, later on to intervene in the scuffle. The petitioner Dhabu Babaj, dealt a blow of sword on the head of Shashi - brother of complainant. He dodged the blow, however, there were bleeding injuries to his ear-lobe. The petitioner Deepak Sabnani assaulted another brother of the complainant - Santosh with weapon - Knife. The petitioner Banti attacked on the complainant and his brothers with broken glass bottle of beer. The on-lookers Sandip Arora, Sunil Giridharilal Sulaha and others intervened in the scuffle. The complainant and the brothers received serious injuries. They were escorted to the Siddheshwar hospital for medical treatment. The petitioner Banti attacked on the complainant and his brothers with broken glass bottle of beer. The on-lookers Sandip Arora, Sunil Giridharilal Sulaha and others intervened in the scuffle. The complainant and the brothers received serious injuries. They were escorted to the Siddheshwar hospital for medical treatment. On the following day, after receipt of information, the police recorded statements of the injured Kanhaiyalal and registered the crime against the petitioners under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and set the penal law in motion. 5. I.O. visited to the spot and drawn the panchanama of scheme of occurrence. He recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. I.O. collected medical certificate and also seized blood stained clothes of the injured. I.O. recovered the weapon of crime at the behest of the petitioners Yogesh @ Yogi Chandralal Bajaj, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner Hitesh @ Dhabu also produced the weapon of crime - sword under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He seized the Muddemal and sent the sample for Chemical analysis. The investigation is in progress. Criminal Writ Petition No. 78 of 2019 6. This petition is moved by the petitioners to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them bearing Crime No. 279 of 2017, registered under Sections 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC, and Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, on 5/12/2017 at Dhule City P.S. The petitioners, are seeking relief of quashing, on the ground that the dispute has been settled amicably between the petitioners - accused and the complainant. Facts giving rise to the present petition are :- 7. The complainant Yogesh Chandralal Bajaj on 5.12.2017 approached to the police of Dhule City P.S. and ventilated the grievances that on 31.11.2017, he was proceeding towards Kumar Nagar to see his friend Ajay Durge. When he was passing from Samta Nagar area, that time, he saw that respondent No. 6 Dhabu, petitioner Kanhaiyalal @ Kannumal Arora, petitioner No. 2, Shashi Peshumal Arora, petitioner No. 3 Mayur Shashi Arora and petitioner No. 4 Macchli @ Santosh Peshumal Aroara were standing in front of the dispensary of Dr. Palani. These petitioners, without any reasonable cause, started abusing the complainant Yogesh. There was bitter exchange of words in between them. Palani. These petitioners, without any reasonable cause, started abusing the complainant Yogesh. There was bitter exchange of words in between them. In the fight, the petitioner Kannumal attacked complainant Yogesh Arora with weapon - wooden log of base ball and caused fracture injuries to his right hand. The petitioner Shashi Arora attacked him by means of a knife on his back. The petitioner - Mayur assaulted on his nose by iron rod and inflected fracture injuries. The petitioner Macchli @ Santosh attacked him by kicks and fist blows and given threats of life. The on-lookers thronged at the spot and intervened in the fight. Thereafter, the injured Yogesh Bajaj was admitted in the Hire Medical Hospital and later-on in the private hospital of Dr. More for medical treatment. 8. Pursuant to report of injured Yogesh, the police of Dhule city P.S. registered the crime against the petitioners and set the penal law in motion. I.O. recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. He collected medical certificate of injuries of the complainant. The weapon of crime came to be recovered from the custody of accused Santosh. Investigation is in progress. 9. Pending the investigation, the petitioners - accused and the complainant in both the aforesaid proceedings, got their dispute compromised in between them. It has been stated that the petitioners realized that they acted impulsively and now they do not want to continue with the fight which could be un-ending and may trigger future offences also. 10. The petitioners and complainant, filed affidavits to that effect and submit that they have settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of relatives and responsible senior persons from the society. Therefore, both the present proceedings be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. Shri Parajanjape learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions vehemently submits that the incident of assault was occurred on the spur of moment. The acts of both the parties were not pre-determined. The petitioners realized that it is necessary to patch up the dispute and differences to maintain cordial relations in between them in future as well in the interest of community at large. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of amicable settlement of dispute, there is no chance to record conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of trial would be an futile efforts. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of amicable settlement of dispute, there is no chance to record conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of trial would be an futile efforts. Therefore, it would be justifiable to compound the offence on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioners accused and the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the exposition of law delineated by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of "Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,2014 6 SCC 446; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.,2019 SCCOnLineSC 320, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalyan Singh & Ors., 2019 AIR SC 312; Gulab Das and Ors. V. State of M.P., (2011) 12 Scale 625 ; and unreported judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017." 12. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioners and the respondent State of Maharashtra. It is not in dispute that the offence punishable under Section 307 and 326 are non-compoundable as per Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution against the petitioners are serious and heinous in nature. The petitioners attacked the complainant with lethal weapons like sword, knife, iron rod, etc. and inflicted fatal injuries on the vital part of body. Obviously, the offences under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC are held serious and heinous offences in the eye of law, which would cause social impact. It is a rule of law that while dealing with the application to compound the offences, on the ground of compromise, it is essential to take into consideration the distinction between the personal and private offences and its impact on the society at large. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikaram Anantrao Joshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29 , it has been delineated that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, it is the duty of the court to scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of the allegations and the crux of the settlement. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikaram Anantrao Joshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29 , it has been delineated that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, it is the duty of the court to scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of the allegations and the crux of the settlement. It is necessary to scrutinize the entire conspectus of the facts in proper perspective for quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the ratio laid down in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra). In the said case, the Honourable Apex Court considered the decision in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and laid down the principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement of dispute between the parties in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid Narinder Singh's case, Their Lordships observed in para. 29.6 as under :- "29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship." 14. In the case of "Parbatbhai Aahir" (supra) relied upon on behalf of the applicant, Their Lordships of the Apex Court, after considering the catena of decisions of the Honourable Apex Court, summarized the propositions and held that, in forming the opinion, whether the criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the High Court must evaluate, whether ends of justice would justify in exercise of inherent powers and while dealing with the plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offences. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. It has been observed that such offences are not private in nature but have a serious impact on the society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases, is founded on the overriding elements of public interest in punishing persons involved in serious offences. 15. Similar principles of law has been reiterated by the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of State of MP Vs. Kalyan Singh relied upon by the petitioners. In this matter it has been elucidated in para.3.1 as under :- "3.1 It is required to be noted that the original Accused was facing the criminal proceedings under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is not in dispute that as per Section 20 of the Cr. P.C. offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are non-compoundable. It is not in dispute that as per Section 20 of the Cr. P.C. offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are non-compoundable. It is also required to be noted that the allegations in the complaint for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are, as such, very serious. It is alleged that the accused fired twice on the complainant by a country - made pistol. From the material on record, it appears that one of the accused persons was reported to be a hardcore criminal having criminal antecedents. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the accused was facing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC and that the offences under these sections are not non-compoundable offences and, looking to the serious allegations against the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC solely on the ground that the original Complainant and the accused have settled the dispute. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Gulab Das and Ors. V. State of M.P., (2011) 12 Scale 625 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court has specifically observed and held that, despite any settlement between the Complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other, the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed, as the offences under Section 307 is a non-compoundable offence. Under the circumstance, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the original Accused for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside." 16. In the recent pronouncement of the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019 SCC Online SC 320 the Honourable Apex Court, after due consideration of various decisions of the Apex Court, on the point of compounding of offence under Section 307 of IPC, observed in para.31 as under : "31. In the recent pronouncement of the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019 SCC Online SC 320 the Honourable Apex Court, after due consideration of various decisions of the Apex Court, on the point of compounding of offence under Section 307 of IPC, observed in para.31 as under : "31. iv) Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove." 17. In the matter in hand, as stated above, in both the petitions, the petitioners ventured to attack on the respective complainant with lethal weapon and inflicted grievous injuries on the vital part of their body. In the matter in hand, as stated above, in both the petitions, the petitioners ventured to attack on the respective complainant with lethal weapon and inflicted grievous injuries on the vital part of their body. The learned prosecutor, produced the report of I.O. and informed to this court that there are two criminal cases pending against the petitioner Yogesh Bajaj, Banti Bajaj, Dhabu Bajaj and others for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 307, 325, 452 etc. of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners drawn attention to the fact that the petitioners Banti and other were acquitted in Sessions Case No. 118 of 2013, in which petitioners were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 397, 355, 452 and 504 of IPC. 18. It is worth to mention that, if the recitals of the FIR, and the statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case are considered minutely, it reflects that the petitioners ventured to attack the complainant, in brutal manner with dangerous weapon. The petitioner Yogesh Bajaj and others, seen habituated for using the lethal weapons like knife, iron rod, hockey sticks, sword etc. casually during the course of assault. In view of conduct and demeanor of the petitioners and the nature of crime committed by them, it categorically reveals that the aforesaid offences committed by the petitioners are not the offences private in nature, but it has a serious impact on the society. It cannot be said that because of settlement, there are least chances of conviction into the matter. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the complainant to quash the criminal proceeding. The gravity of offences and the conduct of the accused/petitioners do not persuade ourselves to quash the proceeding in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As referred above, offences under Sections 307 and 326 are non-compoundable offences. While committing offences, the petitioners/accused used the lethal weapons like sword/knife, iron rod etc. Pending investigation, the petitioners any how managed to enter into the compromise with the complainant but it would not sub-serve the purpose. In case compromise is accepted, it may result in cynical disregard of law, which would have serious impact on the society at large and the people may loose faith on the justice delivery system. Pending investigation, the petitioners any how managed to enter into the compromise with the complainant but it would not sub-serve the purpose. In case compromise is accepted, it may result in cynical disregard of law, which would have serious impact on the society at large and the people may loose faith on the justice delivery system. In such circumstances, the very purpose and object of legislation about deterrent punishment would be frustrated. 19. Hence, we are not prepared to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in favour of petitioners, even though they have resolved the dispute amicably in between them. In the result, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the petitions stand dismissed. The prosecution shall proceed further with the criminal proceedings registered against the petitioners, in accordance with law. Rule stands discharged.