ORDER : This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 FIR and Annnexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.81/2023 of Kilikolloor Police Station, now pending as S.C. No.540/2023 on the files of the District and Sessions Court, Kollam. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the available documents. 3. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, at 14.00 hours on 21.01.2023, the accused who is the brother of CW2, battered on the head of CW2 by using an iron pipe having a length of 86 c.m. and width of 8.5 c.m. with intention do way her, due to the animosity arose out of her continuous residence at the family house, after divorcing her husband. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 307 of IPC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, now the matter has been settled and the defacto complainant and CW2 filed affidavits supporting settlement. In the affidavits, it is stated that the defacto complainant and CW2 have no grievance in quashing the proceedings in Crime No.81/2023 of Kilikolloor Police Station. Therefore, all further proceedings in this crime required to be quashed in view of the settlement. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed quashment on the premise of settlement and submitted that in this case, the prosecution allegations are made out, prima facie and the medical evidence also would justify the same. Therefore, this case could not be quashed merely on the basis of settlement, restraining prosecution from adducing evidence. 6. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed quashment on the premise of settlement and submitted that in this case, the prosecution allegations are made out, prima facie and the medical evidence also would justify the same. Therefore, this case could not be quashed merely on the basis of settlement, restraining prosecution from adducing evidence. 6. In the decision reported in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 466 : 2014 KHC 4195], the Apex Court considered quashment of cases, where offences under Section 307 of IPC is also involved and held as under : Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties. 7. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties. 7. In view of the above legal position, settlement of cases involving offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC also can be considered, if prosecution materials do not suggest commission of the said offence and if otherwise, quashment could not be considered. That is to say, when the courts, while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties. 8. Keeping the above legal principle in mind, I have gone through the accident register cum wound certificate dated 21.01.2023 issued from NS Memorial Institute of Medical Science, Palathara, wherein the history of the alleged cause of injury and the details of injury are stated as under : History and alleged cause of injury: Alleged history of assault by brother of the injured on 21.01.2023 at around 02.00 pm using iron rod. Hit on left side of head and hit on right hand while trying to block the hit. History was stated by: The injured Wound description: Lacerated wounds: 6x1x1 cms on left tempero parietal area of scalp, 1x0.1x0.2 cms on dorsal aspect of base of right thumb. X-ray: Cervical spines & chest – No obvious bony injury visualised, X-ray right hand: fracture base of first metacarpal bone. CT scan of brain: No obvious intracranial abnormality. History was stated by: The injured Wound description: Lacerated wounds: 6x1x1 cms on left tempero parietal area of scalp, 1x0.1x0.2 cms on dorsal aspect of base of right thumb. X-ray: Cervical spines & chest – No obvious bony injury visualised, X-ray right hand: fracture base of first metacarpal bone. CT scan of brain: No obvious intracranial abnormality. Findings of Physical Examination: Conscious, Oriented, PEARL, GCS 15/15, SpO2 98%, BP 110/70 mm of Hg, PR 112/0t, RR 24/mt. SYSTEMIC EXAMINCATION: CVS – S1S2 heard, RESP SYSTEM – Chest clear, ABDOMEN – soft, no tenderness, CNS – No focal neurological deficit. 9. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the accused herein vanquished CW2 and caused injuries on the left tempero parietal area of scalp (a vital/delicate part of the body), dorsal aspect of base of right thumb and fracture base of first metacarpal bone, in his attempt to commit culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. Since materials are in abundance to see commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 307 of IPC by the accused, prima facie, law does not permit quashment sought for in the facts of this case. Hence, the prayer for quashment is liable to fail. Accordingly, this petition also must fail. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands dismissed.