JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. W.P. (Cr.) No. 29 of 2025 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed to quash the criminal proceeding arising out of Namkum P.S. Case No.467 of 2024 registered under Sections 126(2)/ 115(2)/ 303(2)/74/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita. W.P. (Cr.) No. 297 of 2025 & W.P. (Cr.) No. 322 of 2025 3. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed to quash the criminal proceeding arising out of Namkum P.S. Case No.469 of 2024 registered under Sections 126(2)/ 115(2)/118(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita. 4. During the pendency of these cases, in all these three petitions, respective interlocutory applications have been filed, jointly signed by both the parties i.e. the accused and the informant stating therein that good sense has prevailed and on their own will and volition without there being any pressure they have resolved their dispute. 5. It has been submitted that since both the parties are residing in the same building, in different flats, they have resolved their dispute now. They also submit that since the dispute is absolutely private in nature which arose due to some misunderstanding, they have arrived at a compromise. 6. Both the parties pray that on the basis of compromise, the F.I.R. be quashed. 7. After hearing the parties, I find that these cases have been registered by each of the informant making allegation against other. It is alleged that as there was some dispute in respect of the flats, they assaulted each other. 8. After going through the F.I.R. of Namkum P.S. Case No.469 of 2024, I find that it has been registered under Sections 126(2)/ 115(2)/ 118(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita. As per Section 359 of BNSS, Sections 126(2) & 115(2) are compoundable offence. Section 118(1) is non-compoundable offence. Offence Section 118(1) of BNS reads as follows:- Section 118- “Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. As per Section 359 of BNSS, Sections 126(2) & 115(2) are compoundable offence. Section 118(1) is non-compoundable offence. Offence Section 118(1) of BNS reads as follows:- Section 118- “Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. — (1) Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub- section (1) of section 122, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.” 9. After going through the F.I.R., I find that Section 118(1) of BNS is not applicable in the instant case as the weapon which is alleged to have been used is nothing, but a broom (Jharu). A broom is not a instrument which can cause grievous hurt, nor can be used for shooting, stabbing or cutting. Now it can cause death or any bodily injury which can caused death. 10. So far as F.I.R. being Namkum P.S. Case No.467 of 2024 is concerned, I find that case has been registered under Section 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 74 and 3(5) of BNS. Out of these sections 126(2), 303(2) & 115(2) are compoundable offence in terms of Section 359 of BNS. Section 74 is non-compoundable offence. 11. After going through the F.I.R., I find that there is allegation that there was scuffle between the parties. There is nothing in the F.I.R. which suggests that there was any intention or there was any material which can be said to attract Section 74 of BNS. There is nothing that any one tried to outrage the modesty, either knowingly or intentionally. Thus, from bare perusal of the F.I.R., Section 74 of BNS is not made out. 12. There is nothing in the F.I.R. which suggests that there was any intention or there was any material which can be said to attract Section 74 of BNS. There is nothing that any one tried to outrage the modesty, either knowingly or intentionally. Thus, from bare perusal of the F.I.R., Section 74 of BNS is not made out. 12. Considering what has been held above, since in both the F.I.Rs, non-compoundable sections are not made out from bare perusal of the F.I.R., the only sections which remains are compoundable sections. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed that the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure justice. While this power is broad, it must be exercised carefully. However, in cases of personal or civil disputes—such as matrimonial, financial, or commercial matters— where parties have settled, the High Court may quash proceedings if continuing them would serve no purpose and cause injustice. It is necessary to quote paragraph 61 of the aforesaid judgement: 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 14. Considering the facts mentioned above and also the development that the parties have resolved their differences and the offences made out is compoundable, I am inclined to allow all these interlocutory applications. Considering the facts mentioned above and also the development that the parties have resolved their differences and the offences made out is compoundable, I am inclined to allow all these interlocutory applications. Consequently the F.I.R. in both the cases i.e. Namkum P.S. Case No.467 of 2024 and Namkum P.S. Case No.469 of 2024 stand quashed in entirety, qua all the accused persons. 15. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand allowed.