JUDGMENT : VIRENDER SINGH, J. 1. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing FIR No. 153 of 2019, dated 10th June, 2019, registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 25-54-59 of the Arms Act, registered with Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. as well as the resultant proceedings, in case, titled as State vs. Jitender Singh Chandel and Another, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi. 2. It is the stand of the petitioners that after the registration of the above-mentioned FIR, the matter, between the petitioners and respondent No. 2, has been settled amicably and respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue his case. 3. Supporting the compromise, on the ground that the same has been entered into by the petitioners and respondent No. 2, with their free will and consent, without any fear, pressure and coercion, it has been prayed that the abovementioned FIR and the resultant proceedings be quashed, in the interest of justice. Alongwith the petition, the compromise, duly attested by the Notary Public, has also been annexed. 4. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made, in this case, to quash the FIR in issue as well as the resultant proceedings. 5. In view of the said factual position, the first and foremost question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is about the fact, as to whether, the power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in such cases. 6. Perusal of the record shows that the FIR in question has been registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, in which he has specifically stated that a bullet has been fired by the accused with an intention to kill him. After the investigation, the police filed the report, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. wherein it has specifically been mentioned that a bullet has been fired from a weapon, i.e. Pistol 9 mm Glock, by accused-Jitender Singh Chandel. 7. After the investigation, the police filed the report, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. wherein it has specifically been mentioned that a bullet has been fired from a weapon, i.e. Pistol 9 mm Glock, by accused-Jitender Singh Chandel. 7. Considering the said conclusion of the police, as mentioned in the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. this Court is of the considered view that the FIR, in the present case, as well as the proceedings resultant thereto cannot be quashed, by this Court while exercising the power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. While holding so, the view of this Court is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 , wherein it has been clearly held that the proceedings in such type of cases, i.e. cases under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act, cannot be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties. Relevant Para-15.4 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1............... 15.2............... 15.3............... 15.4. 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. 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.” 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. Before parting with the order, it would be just and proper for this Court to mention herein that the findings, so recorded by this Court, are confined only for the decision of the present petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the learned trial Court shall decide the matter, uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.