JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners have preferred this misc petition praying therein that the compromise may be attested and the petitioners be acquitted for offence under Sections 326 & 326/34 of IPC. 2. It is contended by counsel for the accused-petitioners that there was a cross FIR filed way back in October, 2000. In cross FIR, compromise was arrived at and the proceedings were dropped. In the present FIR also, compromise arrived at between the parties and the same was produced before the Court below and Court has compounded the offence under Section 323, 341 & 323/34 is of IPC, but as the offence under Sections 326 & 326/34IPC were non-compoundable, the same were not compounded. The Trial Court has convicted the present appellants. It is also contended that the appeal against the said judgement and sentence is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.) 3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ramgopal & Anr. Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012 which was decided by the Apex Court. 4. Complainant alongwith his counsel and injured are present in Court and they have not disputed the fact that parties have entered into compromise. It is also contended that the injury sustained by Kishori Lal on his hand was a grievous injury, who has expired after fifteen years of the incident. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Petitioners and the injured are neighbours and resident of the same village. There is a long pending dispute and the parties want it to be resolved to maintain peace and harmony between them. 7. Apex Court in Ramgopal & Anr. Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh(supra) was dealing with the case which is akin to that of the present case wherein also the accused was convicted for offence under Section 326 of IPC. In that case accused prayed for compounding the offence and High Court denied the prayer. Apex Court acquitted the appellant. The Apex Court also observed that the High Court has inherent powers to compound the offence, even in non-compoundable offence. 8. The Apex Court also observed that criminal proceedings involving non-henious offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. 8. The Apex Court also observed that criminal proceedings involving non-henious offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended. 9. In a touchstone of above judgment, looking to the facts of the present case, the incident took place way back in the year 2000 and a period of 21 years has lapsed. Parties have amicably settled their dispute and the proceedings were dropped. The injury sustained by the injured was a grievous injury. 10. The parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willing and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute. The dispute took place 21 years ago. Parties are residents of the same village and quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive and have no vengeance against each other cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain uneffected on acceptance of amicable settlement between the parties. 11. In view of above, misc. petition is allowed. Petitioners are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 11. In view of above, misc. petition is allowed. Petitioners are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No. 90/2017 "Laxmi Narayan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan" stands disposed. 12. Stay Application also stands disposed. 13. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court.