ORDER : SI Liyakat Ali, IO Police Station Indora, present in person. 2. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and F.I.R. No. 246/2008 dated 06-11-2008 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, (H.P.) as well as judgment dated 01.11.2014 passed by the Ld. JMIC, Indora, District Kangra (HP) may kindly be quashed/set aside in the interest of law, equity and justice.” 3. On the basis of FIR No. 246/08, dated 6.11.2008, registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, at the behest of complainant/respondent No. 2 Jagdish Chand, the petitioners were tried for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 325, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in terms of the judgment passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, in Criminal Case No. 93-II/2009, titled as State vs. Raj Kumar and others, dated 01.11.2014, the petitioners were convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The sentence so imposed upon the petitioners has been assailed by the petitioners before the learned Appellate Court and the appeal is stated to be pending adjudication. The petitioners submitted that in the meanwhile, the issue which led to registration of the FIR and ensuing trial, which led to their conviction, stands amicably settled between them and the complainant. To demonstrate this fact, a copy of the compromise deed, which has been entered into between the complainant and the petitioners, has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. 5. After service, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has appeared in the Court today. His statement has been separately recorded in the Court wherein he has acknowledged the execution of the compromise deed and also deposed in the Court that he has no objection in case this petition is allowed and the FIR is quashed and set aside and judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners by learned JMIC, Idora, is also ordered to be set aside. 6. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General has also very fairly submitted that as the parties have amicably settled the matter between them and as they intend to live in peace and harmony, the respondent-State in the peculiar facts of this case, has no objection in case this petition is allowed vis-à-vis the prayer made by the petitioners by way of present petition. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for both the parties and having gone through the pleadings well as documents appended therewith, as well as statement which has been made by the complainant before the Court, this Court is of the Considered view that this is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction so vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more so, in light of law which has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ramgopal & Anr. Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012), decided on 29.09.2021 and another connected matter, in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that extraordinary power enjoyed by High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ought to be exercised by the Court in the context of quashing of the criminal proceedings bearing in mind:(i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim and (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations. Hon’ble Supreme Court has been further pleased to hold in this case itself that in 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. 8. Coming to the facts of this case, the Court has been informed that the incident took place when the complainant had gone to the market for the purchase of household articles when he was allegedly attacked by the accused. 8. Coming to the facts of this case, the Court has been informed that the incident took place when the complainant had gone to the market for the purchase of household articles when he was allegedly attacked by the accused. Learned Additional Advocate General has informed the Court that as per his instructions, besides the FIR which stood lodged against the present petitioners by respondent No. 2 herein, previously the petitioners were not having any criminal history and even after lodging of the FIR, they have not been found to be involved in any other criminal act. Not only this, the Court has been informed that the matter has been got compromised between the parties by the elders of the village as well as Panchayat and as the petitioners and respondent No. 2/complainant happen to be the residents of the same village, they have taken a conscious decision to bury their differences so that they can live in peace and harmony with each other. 9. In these circumstances, guided by the principles which have been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ramgopal’s case (supra), this petition is allowed and the FIR No. 246/2008, dated 06.11.2008, registered at Police Station Indora, under Section 342, 323, 324, 325, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners by the Court of learned JMIC, Indora, is ordered to be quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall be at liberty to place a copy of this order in the record of the appeal which is pending adjudication and on the strength of this order, learned Appellate Court, by passing appropriate orders, shall close the proceedings. Compromise deed as well as statement of respondent No. 2/complainant recorded today in the Court shall form part of the order. Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.