JUDGMENT : 1. None appears on behalf of the Petitioners on call. Heard Ms. T. Jini, the learned Additional P.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) for quashing of Basar P.S. Case No.03/2015 registered under Sections 452/326/427/34 IPC as well as corresponding G.R. Case No.31/2016 which is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo, on the ground of mutual settlement dated 19.07.2019 arrived at between the parties i.e. the complainant, victim and the accused. 3. The facts of the instant case is that on 25.02.2015 at 8.15 hours, a written complaint was received by P.S. Basar from one Sri. Koken Taba, aged about 80 years, son of Late Tako Taba of village Nyobom (Old Market Basar) P.O./P.S. Basar, District West Siang (AP) to the effect that on 27.02.2015 at around 2.30 pm, the petitioners herein entered into his house, broken the room doors and beaten up his son Kenrik Taba and daughter-in-law with the weapons and tried to kill both of them within a minute, ran away totally broken the Alto Car. On receipt of the said complaint, a case vide Basar P.S. Case No.03/2015 was registered under Sections 452/324/427/34 IPC. 4. It further transpires from the charge sheet so submitted that the accused at Column No. 11, Serial No. 11-A, 11-B, 11-C, 11-D, 11-E, 11-F, 11-G, 11-H, 11- I, 11-J, 11-K, 11-L, 11-M, 11-N, 11-O of the charge sheet arrived at the house of Koken Taba equipped with lathis, iron rod and daos on 27.02.2015 at around 2.30 PM. It further transpires from the charge sheet that the accused at Serial No.11-A to 11-D entered into the house of Koken Taba physically assaulted to Kenrik Taba and his wife Ebi Taba (Sora) and caused grievous hurt to them and damaged the car of Kenrik Taba parked in his house compound and ran away within few minutes after committing crime. 5. It is under such circumstances that the charge sheet has been filed under Sections 452/326/427/34 IPC. It further appears from the records that the said Basar P.S. Case No.03/2015 had given rise to G.R. Case No.31/2016 and the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District had taken cognizance of the same and the said G.R. Case No.31/2016 was pending for consideration of charge. It further appears from the records that the said Basar P.S. Case No.03/2015 had given rise to G.R. Case No.31/2016 and the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District had taken cognizance of the same and the said G.R. Case No.31/2016 was pending for consideration of charge. 6. Subsequent thereto, it further appears on record that there has been some form of a compromise entered into between the accused and the victim on 19.07.2019 which has been enclosed to the instant criminal petition as Annexure-3. 7. In the above facts, let this Court take into consideration the settled position of law as to whether the FIR as well as the G.R. Case No.31/2016 can be quashed on the basis of the compromise. The law has been well settled by the Supreme Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 936 wherein the Supreme Court observed that Court exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot examine the correctness of the allegations in the complaint except in exceptional rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or does not disclose any offence. It was further observed that the criminal proceedings cannot be nipped at the bud by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only because there has been a settlement. The Supreme Court observed that the offences which fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and are crime against the society and not against the individual alone cannot be nipped at the bud on the basis of a settlement. Paragraph 39 to 50 being relevant is quoted hereinbelow: “39. Orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent, where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to extract money from the Accused. Furthermore, financially strong offenders would go scot free, even in cases of grave and serious offences such as murder, rape, bride-burning, etc. by buying of informants/complainants and settling with them. This would render otiose provisions such as Sections 306, 498-A, 304-B etc. incorporated in the Indian Penal Code as a deterrent, with a specific social purpose. 40. In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. by buying of informants/complainants and settling with them. This would render otiose provisions such as Sections 306, 498-A, 304-B etc. incorporated in the Indian Penal Code as a deterrent, with a specific social purpose. 40. In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the Accused. The State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society. It is for the state to prosecute offenders. In case of grave and serious non-compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society. 41. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0781/2012 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 , this Court discussed the circumstances in which the High Court quashes criminal proceedings in case of a non-compoundable offence, when there is a settlement between the parties and enunciated the following principles: 58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil favour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed. 42. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 9 SCC 466 (sic MANU/SC/0235/2014 : (2014) 6 SCC 466 ), this Court held that in case of heinous and serious offences, which are generally to be treated as crime against society, it is the duty of the State to punish the offender. Hence, even when there is a settlement, the view of the offender and victim will not prevail since it is in the interest of society that the offender should be punished to deter others from committing a similar crime. 43. In State of Maharashtra v. VikramAnantraiDoshi MANU/SC/0842/2014 : (2014) 15 SC 29, this Court held: 26. ... availing of money from a nationalised bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the chargesheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. ... availing of money from a nationalised bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the chargesheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kinds of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation. ... 44. In CBI v. Maninder Singh MANU/SC/0936/2015 : (2016) 1 SCC 389 , this Court held: 17. ... In economic offences the Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned was well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the Accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved. 45. In State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Vasanthi Stanley MANU/SC/1028/2015 : (2016) 1 SCC 376 , this Court held: 14. ... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an Accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score. 15. ... A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system. ... 46. In Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. MANU/SC/1241/2017 : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , a three-Judge Bench of this Court quoted Narinder Singh (supra), Vikram Anantrai Doshi (supra), CBI v. Maninder Singh (supra), R. Vasanthi Stanley (supra) and held: 16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash Under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. The power to quash Under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power Under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. 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. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil favour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 47. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. MANU/SC/0320/2019 : (2019) 5 SCC 688 , a three-Judge Bench discussed the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down the following principles: 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. That the power conferred Under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences Under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, etc. Offences Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code. 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/delicate 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 chargesheet 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [MANU/SC/0235/2014 : (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power Under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the Accused; the conduct of the Accused, namely, whether the Accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc. 48. In Arun Singh and Ors. 48. In Arun Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary and Ors. MANU/SC/0160/2020 : (2020) 3 SCC 736 , this Court held: 14. In another decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0235/2014 : (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] it has been observed that in respect of offence against the society it is the duty to punish the offender. Hence, even where there is a settlement between the offender and victim the same shall not prevail since it is in interests of the society that offender should be punished which acts as deterrent for others from committing similar crime. On the other hand, there may be offences falling in the category where the correctional objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage than the theory of deterrent punishment. In such cases, the court may be of the opinion that a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations between them and would resolve a festering private dispute and thus may exercise power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings or the complaint or the FIR as the case may be. 15. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down, we are of the view that offences for which the Appellants have been charged are in fact offences against society and not private in nature. Such offences have serious impact upon society and continuance of trial of such cases is founded on the overriding effect of public interests in punishing persons for such serious offences. It is neither an offence arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or such similar transactions or has any element of civil dispute thus it stands on a distinct footing. In such cases, settlement even if arrived at between the complainant and the Accused, the same cannot constitute a valid ground to quash the FIR or the charge-sheet. 16. Thus the High Court cannot be said to be unjustified in refusing to quash the charge-sheet on the ground of compromise between the parties. 49. In exercise of power Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegation in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. 50. 49. In exercise of power Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegation in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. 50. In our considered opinion, the Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only because there is a settlement, in this case a monetary settlement, between the Accused and the complainant and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased. As held by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan and Ors. (supra), Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. On a parity of reasoning, offence Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code would fall in the same category. An FIR Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else. It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether the FIR in this case discloses any offence Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, since the High Court, in exercise of its power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the Accused and the informant had been compromised.” 8. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into consideration as to whether the offence under which the charge sheet has been submitted would come within the ambit of an offence against the society as well as as to whether the offences alleged are heinous and serious offences. It would appear from the perusal of the charge sheet that the victims after the incident was taken for medical examination before a Medical Officer Dr. R. Taso of CHC Basar who opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. It would appear from the perusal of the charge sheet that the victims after the incident was taken for medical examination before a Medical Officer Dr. R. Taso of CHC Basar who opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. The offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is not only an offence against the society but it is also an offence of serious and heinous nature and therefore in the opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case for quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on the basis of settlement reached. Furthermore, it is also relevant to take note of that from the contents of the records, the offences alleged can under no circumstances be said to be a dispute in the nature of commercial transaction or dispute of civil nature or was in the nature of private wrong. In the instant case, the allegation against the accused/petitioners is that they inflicted severe injuries upon the victims and had also damaged the car. The medical report is a testament to that. 9. Consequently, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of the compromise and/or settlement. The interim order passed on 23.03.2020 by this Court for staying the G.R. Case No.31/2016 stands vacated. 10. The LCR which have been called for by this Court be returned forthwith by the Registry. 11. With above observations and directions, the instant petition stands dismissed.