ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this court by way of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings of Sessions Case No.123/2016 pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan for the offences under Sections 148, 326 and 307 of the IPC on the ground of compromise. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably by entering into a compromise and they want to bury the bitterness arose out of the scuffle between them. Prior to the incident, they were having good relations with each other and after filing of the case, a discord has taken place between them but now they have resolved their dispute finally and they are trying to re-establish their relations cordially for which a compromise has been entered between them and the same has been filed and verified before the Court below but since the offences under Sections 148, 326 & 307 of the IPC are not compoundable, therefore, the proceeding has been kept pending and the trial has been commenced. Learned counsel further submits that prima facie no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out as the ingredients essential to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC are not made out against them. To support his contention, he drew the attention of the Court towards the injury report of Dhanna Ram, who received 3 injuries, out of which one is wound on left temporal region and other two are simple abrasions. He submits that the accused-petitioners were having no criminal intent to kill the victim, rather the incident occurred in a spur of moment without there being any premeditation or pre-concert. He lastly submitted that had there been any intent to kill the victim, the accused who were large in number and allegedly having weapons in their hands and were in dominating position; could have inflicted more injuries on vital body part of the victim. Soon after the incident, the accused had left the place which further fortifies the plea that there was no intent of the accused-petitioners to kill the victim. Thus, prima facie no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant does not refute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and verified the factum of compromise. Thus, prima facie no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant does not refute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and verified the factum of compromise. He submitted that his party is ready and willing to drop the criminal proceedings and is eager to re-establish cordial relationship between them. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the legal and factual aspect of the matter. 4. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Looking to the nature of injuries, number of injuries, part of body chosen to inflict injury, kind of weapon used to inflict injuries, the number of accused persons and attending circumstances, it can safely be inferred that accused-petitioners were having no intent to kill the injured Dhana Ram. Intention to kill to someone is essential ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, which is lacking in the instant matter. Thus, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. The other offences are triable by Magistrate and the fact that a compromise deed executed in between the parties. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The offence alleged in this matter is non-compoundable, however Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes the lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes the lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that whether dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives; neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides and for restitution of relationship and with a view to end-up the dispute in between them permanently, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated thereto. 5. Here in this case, though the offences are not compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essentially in between the parties which is not affecting public peace and tranquility therefore with a view to maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof. 6. Accordingly, the criminal misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR mentioned above, and all further proceedings including the proceeding pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.123/2016 (State Vs. Babu Lal & Ors.) are hereby quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted from the charges under Sections 148, 326 and 307 IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled.