JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 01.04.2022 notice was issued to the petitioners in Cr. Revision No.312 of 2005, Cr. Revision No.223 of 2005 & petitioner no.1 & 3 in Cr. Revision No.311 of 2005. A service report has been received indicating therein that petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Cr. Revision No.312 of 2005 have died and as per supplementary affidavit dated 10.08.2017 petitioner no.2 in Cr. Revision no. 311 of 2005 has died on 08.09.2009. The notices have been served upon rest of the petitioners in all cases. 3. In view of the aforesaid fact, the revision application is dismissed as abated against petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Cr. Revision No.312 of 2005 & Petitioner No.2 in Cr. Revision No.311 of 2005. 4. Since the revision applications i.e. Cr. Rev. No. 312 of 2005 and Cr. Rev. No. 223 of 2005 arise out of common judgment passed by the appellate court and are also interconnected with the same P.S. case, as such both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 5. Further, the issue involved in the aforesaid two revision applications are also similar to Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2005, and such, same is also heard along with other two cases. Cr. Revision Nos. 312 of 2005 & 223 of 2005 6. Both these revision applications have been preferred against the judgment dated 27.01.2005 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Jamtara, in Cr. Appeal No. 299 of 1986/131 of 2004; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.1986 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamtara in S.C. No. 187 of 1977 as corrected by the learned court by order dated 14.03.2005; whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 IPC has been affirmed. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & Gul Muhammad were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years each under Section 307 IPC, 3 years each R.I. under section 326 IPC, petitioner nos. 4, 5 & Gul Muhammad for 2 years each under Section 324 IPC, petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & Gul Muhammad for one year R.I. each under section 148 IPC, petitioner nos. 4, 5 & Gul Muhammad for 2 years each under Section 324 IPC, petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & Gul Muhammad for one year R.I. each under section 148 IPC, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 for R.I. for six months each under section 323 IPC, petitioner no.3 for 3 years under Section 307 IPC, 2 years under Section 326 IPC, 1 year under Section 324 IPC, 6 month under Section 148 IPC and 3 months under Section 323 IPC read with Section 109 IPC. 7. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.09.1976 at about 8 p.m. all the accused persons armed with lathi, cycle chain, Bhala, Dager and tangi assaulted Maniruddin Mian who sustained injuries. They assaulted Maniruddin Mian in village persola due to previous enmity. While informant Babulal Mian along with others took the injured Maniruddin Mian on a cot to pearsola, Mari-bhatti where at about 10 a.m. a Punjabi Bus reached from Mihijam side and the injured Maniruddin Mian was being carried to Jamtara Hospital by the said bus and when that bus reached near Gorainala more, all the accused persons named above alongwith other 8-10 persons stopped the bus. Accused Kurban Mian and Tamijuddin Mian ordered to kill Maniruddin Mian and others. On the order, accused Hamiruddin Mian armed with lathi, Rahman Mian armed with Bhala, Dindar Mian armed with cycle chain, Asriddin Mian armed with dagar, Basir Mian armed with tangi and Daud Mian armed with lathi and other 8 to 10 persons armed with lathi, Bhala etc; climbed upon the bus roof where Maniruddin Mian was lying in injured condition and began to assault and as a result of which Karim Ansari, Chotu Mian, Mokin Mian and Mahabir Ansari sustained injury. Karim Ansari became unconscious on being injured. Hamridduin Mian also assaulted him with cycle chain and he received injuries on right leg, left thigh, buttock and chest. The injured were admitted in Jamtara Hospital where Maniruddin Mian, and Karim Mian were admitted in unconscious state. 8. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this court towards a compromise petition which has been filed by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No. 661 of 2005, wherein the petitioners and the opposite parties have arrived at amicable settlement. Relevant portion of the interlocutory application is quoted hereinbelow:- “10. 8. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this court towards a compromise petition which has been filed by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No. 661 of 2005, wherein the petitioners and the opposite parties have arrived at amicable settlement. Relevant portion of the interlocutory application is quoted hereinbelow:- “10. That the informant and the accused persons have been litigating since 1977 and a good and healthy relationship between them has been restored by the grace of god and on the intervention of the well-wishers of the village. 11. That for the ends of peace, friendship and justice the instant revision application filed by the petitioners may be disposed of on the basis of this comprises petition.” 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that though few of the charges like Section 326 and 307 IPC are non-compoundable as per Section 320 of Cr. P.C.; however, Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments have opined that if the offences are entirely personal in nature and not affecting public peace or tranquility, then quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure ends of justice. 10. Learned counsel further referred to the judgment passed in the case of Yogendra Yadav and others Versus State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and submits that continuation of criminal proceeding 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 as securing the ends of justice is the ultimate guiding factor. 11. For better appreciation paragraph No. 4 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC which are non-compoundable? Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988). Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder, etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. 12. Learned counsel further referred to the judgment passed in the case of Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and submits that the Hon’ble Apex court in this judgment has held that merely by incorporating any section like section 307 IPC will not stop this court from interfering in quashing the proceeding rather it would be open to the court to examine as to whether incorporation of the provision is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence. 13. For brevity para 29.6 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 13. For brevity para 29.6 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 proving 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/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 14. Learned counsel further referred to the deposition and the allegation made in the F.I.R. and submits that basically there was a personal enmity between the two parties and as per the deposition of the doctor only two injuries were with grievous in nature, however, all the other injuries were simple. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any intention to kill the victim. Relying upon the aforesaid submission and the judgments and also the compromise petition, learned sr. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any intention to kill the victim. Relying upon the aforesaid submission and the judgments and also the compromise petition, learned sr. counsel for the petitioners submits that for the ends of justice it is desirable that the litigation which is running for years together as the time of occurrence was 1976 and about more than 45 years have lapsed, as such interest of justice would be sufficed by accepting the compromise petition and further setting aside the conviction order. Cr. Revision No. 311 of 2005 15. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 27.01.2005 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.,- Jamtara in Cr. appeal No. 295 of 1986/125 of 2004; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.1986 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Jamtara, in S.C. No. 62 of 1977; whereby the petitioners were found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 307 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 307 IPC, three years under Section 326 IPC and R.I. for 2 years under Section 324 IPC and all sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that though few of the charges for which the petitioners have been convicted are non-compoundable as per the provisions of Cr. P.C., however, the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments have opined that if the offences were entirely personal in nature, and not affecting public peace or tranquility then setting aside the conviction on account of compromise would secure ends of justice. 17. In this case also there is a case and counter case and in the latter nine persons have been convicted and also that none of the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC have been proved against the petitioners. Further, all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. 18. However, now since compromise has been arrived at between the parties which has been filed by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No. 651 of 2005 wherein the petitioners and the opposite parties have arrived at amicable settlement; judgment of conviction may be set-aside. Relevant portion of the interlocutory application is quoted hereinbelow. “5. 18. However, now since compromise has been arrived at between the parties which has been filed by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No. 651 of 2005 wherein the petitioners and the opposite parties have arrived at amicable settlement; judgment of conviction may be set-aside. Relevant portion of the interlocutory application is quoted hereinbelow. “5. That the opposite parties no.2 and 3 state that good sense has prevailed upon them and the petitioners and they have compromised their case amicably outside the court and good relationship has been restored between them and that both the parties with their family members are living with love and in peace.” 19. Relying upon the aforesaid compromise application, learned senior counsel submits that the offences were entirely personal in nature and not affecting public at large and quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure ends of justice. 20. Learned A.P.P. though supported the judgments passed by the trial court in the above referred cases, however, he supported the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that compromise has been arrived at and the case is also very old, inasmuch as, in Cr. Revision No. 312/2005 & Cr. Revision No.223/2005 the time of occurrence is September’ 1976; whereas the time of occurrence in Cr. Revision No.311 of 2005 is also September’ 76. He also admitted that there was personal enmity between the two parties due to land dispute in both the police case. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents including the LCR and the compromise petition in the backdrop of the facts of the respective cases and also the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Singh (Supra) wherein a general guidelines and limitations on exercise of quashment power of High Court has been laid down. It is true that offence under Section 307 & 326 IPC falls under the category of heinous and serious offence and therefore, generally they are treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, but the facts of the above referred cases as appears from the prosecution case is that the fight was personal against the individuals and nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution in the above referred cases to show that there was any intention to murder the victim. It further transpires that both the prosecution case is of 1976 and more than 45 years have lapsed. Further, even the informant party has compromised this issue in order to continue a peaceful life. 22. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them and which will certainly improve their future relationship. This court is also conscious about the fact that accepting this compromise petition between the parties will not affect public peace or tranquility and the compromise would certainly bring peace between the parties and they will not give a bad precedent to the society and pursuing this litigation would be waste of time and energy. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Apex Court and having regards to the facts and circumstances of the cases; this Court accepts the compromise petitions which has been filed in Cr. Revision No.312/2005 with 223/2005 & 311 of 2005 and consequently, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove and the averments in the respective compromise petitions; the judgments of conviction and order of sentence, in the above referred cases, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 24. As a result, the judgment dated 27.01.2005 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Jamtara, in Cr. Appeal No. 299 of 1986/131 of 2004; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.1986 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamtara in S.C. No. 187 of 1977 as corrected by the learned court by order dated 14.03.2005 has been affirmed and also the judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2005 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C,-Jamtara in Cr. appeal No. 295 of 1986/125 of 2004; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.1986 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Jamtara, in S.C. No. 62 of 1977; has been upheld; are hereby, quashed and set aside. The petitioners of all the above referred revision applications shall be discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below. 26. Let the lower court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.