ORDER : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 106/2024 dated 26.03.2024, registered at Police Station Ajeetgarh, District Neem Ka Thana, for offence under Section(s) 143, 341, 365, 323, 382, 307 & 506 of I.P.C. 2. At the outset, learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that the complainant lodged the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioners at Police Station Ajeetgarh, District Neem Ka Thana, stating that on 25.03.2024 whilst the complainant was on his way back to his residence, the petitioners unexpectedly stopped his motor cycle and forced him to sit along with them in a car. It was alleged that during the said encounter, one of the petitioners gave the complainant a blow on his leg with an iron rod, following which the complainant was severely assaulted by the petitioners. Moreover, while the complainant was in the car, the petitioners took away his money, mobile phone and gold chain. Lastly, it was averred that around 1.30 A.M. when the car stopped at a dhaaba, the complainant screamed for help and was thereafter rescued by the people nearby/pedestrians. 3. Howsoever, learned counsel submitted that vide compromise deed (Annexure-2) dated 26.05.2024, the inter se dispute between the parties has been resolved. Learned counsel further informed the Court that both the parties are close relatives, and have amicably settled the dispute amongst them, sans coercion. 4. In support of the compromise, learned counsel placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. vs. Laxminarayan reported in (2019) AIR (SC) 1296. While placing reliance upon the said judgments, learned counsel submitted that even in the matters which are non-compoundable in nature, compromise can be effectuated and thereafter, the proceedings can be quashed. 5. The foregoing averments were also endorsed by the learned counsel representing the complainant. 6. Heard and considered. 7. Upon a co-joint perusal of the F.I.R. along with the other relevant record, this Court vide order dated 03.07.2024, had directed the Investigating Officer to mark appearance before the Court along with the case diary. 8. The Investigating Officer, present in Court, submitted that the petitioners have an array of criminal antecedents reflected against them. Moreover, as on date, the petitioners are absconding as well. 8. The Investigating Officer, present in Court, submitted that the petitioners have an array of criminal antecedents reflected against them. Moreover, as on date, the petitioners are absconding as well. Lastly, whilst drawing the undertones of coercion in effectuating the stated compromise, the Investigating Officer apprised the Court of the grievous injuries reflected on the person of the complainant, especially the face. 9. This Court after considering the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and pursuant to having scanned the record before this Court, deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant petition, for the following reasons, namely:- 9.1 That on 02.04.2024, the complainant had filed a representation before the concerned Superintendent of Police, with a prayer for expediting the ongoing investigation and seeking police protection on account of the death threats received by him via Whatsapp message(s), amongst other modes. 9.2 That the report of the medical examination of the complainant, as conducted on 26.03.2024, categorically exhibits the infliction of grievous and life threatening injuries on the person of the complainant. Moreover, it was only on account of said injuries, that the impugned F.I.R came to be registered under Section 307 of I.P.C amongst others. 9.3 That it is a settled position of law that granting any benefit under the contours of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. shall be strictly subject to determination, on the independent facts and circumstances of each case, especially when the relief sought pertains to the quashing of a FIR. In this regard, it is noted that in Laxminarayan (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the quashing of a F.I.R. does not entail an automatic or implied process to be exercised uniformly by the Courts. Rather, whilst entertaining such a prayer, the Court ought to give due weightage to the following stipulations, noted herein-under:- 9.3.1 Whether the crime involved is against the society at large or against an individual? 9.3.2 Whether the dispute is of a civil or criminal nature? 9.3.3 The seriousness/nature/category of offence. 9.3.4 Stage of proceedings/inquiry. 9.3.5 Whether the accused has antecedents and/or is absconding? 9.3.6 The circumstances under which the compromise has been effectuated. 9.4 That in addition to the grievous injuries on the person of the complainant, allegations qua theft/snatching of certain valuables from the complainant have also been leveled against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. 10. 9.3.4 Stage of proceedings/inquiry. 9.3.5 Whether the accused has antecedents and/or is absconding? 9.3.6 The circumstances under which the compromise has been effectuated. 9.4 That in addition to the grievous injuries on the person of the complainant, allegations qua theft/snatching of certain valuables from the complainant have also been leveled against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. 10. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that the mere presentation of a compromise before the Court, shall not automatically sway the Court to form an opinion in support of the quashing of the F.I.R. The said exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not mechanical per se. Whilst taking on the task of determining whether a F.I.R. ought to be quashed or not, the nature of the offense and also, its social impact ought to be given due weightage. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the offense as alleged pertains to Section 307 of IPC, with categoric findings on the grievous nature of the injuries reflected on the person of the complainant. In no uncertain terms, it can be deduced that an offense of such a nature, which by law is non-compoundable in nature, leaves a wider negative social impact in the society. An offense against the bodily integrity of an individual, is not only a private wrong, but also one that constitutes a social evil. The wider impact of an offence of such nature, directly results into the propagation of fear in the society. 12. Therefore, in the present case, in the absence of due and complete investigation and trial, the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage, as said exercise shall not only be premature, but also ignorant of key material facts, such as the recorded presence of antecedents against the petitioners coupled with the factum of their abscondence from law enforcement. Additionally, the reflection of threats through Whatsapp messages, does not do any favour to the prayer of the petitioners, casting a shadow of doubt on the integrity and free-will of such a compromise (Annexure-2). 13. In support of the said observations, reliance can be placed upon the overlapping dictum enunciated in Laxminarayan (Supra), which is reproduced herein-under:- “11. Additionally, the reflection of threats through Whatsapp messages, does not do any favour to the prayer of the petitioners, casting a shadow of doubt on the integrity and free-will of such a compromise (Annexure-2). 13. In support of the said observations, reliance can be placed upon the overlapping dictum enunciated in Laxminarayan (Supra), which is reproduced herein-under:- “11. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present appeals, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the FIR for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC solely on the basis of a compromise between the complainant and the accused. That in view of the compromise and the stand taken by the complainant, considering the decision of this Court in Shiji, the High Court has observed that there is no change of recording conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of a trial would be exercise in futility, the High Court has quashed the FIR. 11.1. However, the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the offences alleged were non-compoundable offences as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. From the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the High Court has not at all considered the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the seriousness of the offences and its social impact. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court has not at all considered the distinction between a personal or private wrong and a social wrong and the social impact. As observed by this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, the Court’s principal duty, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings, should be to scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of the allegations and the crux of the settlement. As observed, it is the experience of the Judge that comes to his aid and the said experience should be used with care, caution, circumspection and courageous prudence. In the case at hand, the High Court has not at all taken pains to scrutinise the entire conspectus of facts in proper perspective and has quashed the criminal proceedings mechanically. As observed, it is the experience of the Judge that comes to his aid and the said experience should be used with care, caution, circumspection and courageous prudence. In the case at hand, the High Court has not at all taken pains to scrutinise the entire conspectus of facts in proper perspective and has quashed the criminal proceedings mechanically. Even, the quashing of the FIR by the High Court in the present case for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC, and that too in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is just contrary to the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions.” 14. Therefore, in summation, considering the foregoing observations and categorically taking note of the antecedents of the petitioners coupled with the fact that as on date, the petitioners are absconding from law enforcement authorities; that the offense as alleged under Section 307 is heinous in nature, leaving a wider negative social impact; that subsequent to the registration of the impugned FIR, the complainant has been at the receiving end of threats to their life, on account of which, an application for police protection and expeditious investigation was preferred on 02.04.2024 as well; that the contention of an amicable compromise ought to be scrutinized and/or juxtaposed with the application dated 02.04.2024 seeking further protection; that quashing of the FIR at the present stage shall be premature in the absence of complete investigation/trial and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to exercise the discretionary power conferred vide Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR numbering 106/2024 dated 26.03.2024, registered at Police Station Ajeetgarh, District Neem Ka Thana, for offence under Section(s) 143, 341, 365, 323, 382, 307 & 506 of I.P.C. 15. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.