Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of filing this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., the petitioners seek quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR No. 96/2009, registered at P.S. Gangashahar, Bikaner, presently pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No. 633/2014, for the alleged offences under Sections 325 , 323, 324, 326, 341, 307, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC , on the strength of a compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. On 21.05.2009, respondent no.2, Sahi Ram, lodged an FIR against his cousins, Vijay Pal, Papu Ram, and others, regarding a land dispute. The dispute escalated when Sahi Ram did not invite them to his sister's wedding. On 20.05.2009, at around 10:00 P.M., Sahi Ram, along with Shankar Lal and Pawan Kumar, was allegedly attacked near Udairamsar by the accused, who were hiding in bushes. Vijay Pal, armed with a barchi, attempted to strike but injured Pawan Kumar instead, causing them to fall from the motorcycle. The accused then allegedly assaulted them, and 4-5 unidentified persons were also mentioned in the FIR. A charge sheet was filed, and trial proceedings commenced, with prosecution evidence recorded up to PW-17. However, during the trial, Pawan Kumar (PW-6) turned hostile. Over time, due to familial ties and social intervention, the parties reconciled and reached a compromise, which was verified for certain compoundable offences under Sections 323 , 341, and 325 of IPC . Since some charges were non- compoundable, the trial continued. The petitioners have now approached the Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., seeking quashing of proceedings, arguing that further trial serves no purpose and only adds to judicial burden. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the continuation of proceedings in Sessions Case No. 633/2014, despite the compromise, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and an unnecessary burden on judicial resources, as the dispute had already been amicably settled between the parties. 4. Heard the learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 5. Upon careful examination of the case records, the facts reveal that the FIR was lodged by the complainant, Sahi Ram, alleging that he, along with Shankar Lal and Pawan Kumar, was assaulted on 21.05.2009. 4. Heard the learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 5. Upon careful examination of the case records, the facts reveal that the FIR was lodged by the complainant, Sahi Ram, alleging that he, along with Shankar Lal and Pawan Kumar, was assaulted on 21.05.2009. The charge sheet was filed against the accused Vijay Pal and Om Prakash for multiple offences, including Section 307 of the IPC . A detailed analysis of the medical evidence indicates that victim Shankar Lal suffered four injuries, all of which were simple and caused by a blunt object, consisting of three abrasions and one complaint of pain in the lower lumbar region. Similarly, victim Pawan Kumar sustained a stitched wound on his forehead, and upon medical jurist examination, Injury No. 2 was classified as simple. 6. The trial proceedings have been pending since 2009, spanning over 16 years, which is an inordinate delay and weighs significantly on the administration of justice. During the course of the trial, PW-6 Pawan Kumar, a crucial witness, turned hostile and stated that he sustained the injury due to a fall on the ground. He was extensively cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, yet nothing substantive emerged to support the prosecution’s case. Likewise, PW-2 Shankar Lal, though he alleged assault, provided omnibus allegations, failing to establish specific intent or any direct act attributable to the accused that would sustain the charge under Section 307 IPC . 7. A careful scrutiny of the material available on record suggests that no sufficient evidence has been brought forth to establish the requisite mens rea (intent) for an offence under Section 307 IPC . The nature, number, and severity of injuries do not prima facie support the prosecution's claim that there was an intention to commit murder. Furthermore, after the statement of PW-6 (Pawan Kumar), both victims, along with the first informant, entered into a compromise, which was duly submitted before the trial court and verified. In light of this compromise, the learned trial judge compounded the compoundable offences; however, since Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable, the proceedings under that section, along with Sections 147 , 148, and 149 IPC , continued. 8. At this juncture, the continuation of proceedings under Section 307 IPC appears to be an exercise in futility. In light of this compromise, the learned trial judge compounded the compoundable offences; however, since Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable, the proceedings under that section, along with Sections 147 , 148, and 149 IPC , continued. 8. At this juncture, the continuation of proceedings under Section 307 IPC appears to be an exercise in futility. The star witnesses—PW-2 Shankar Lal and PW-6 Pawan Kumar—have not substantiated the allegations to sustain a charge under Section 307 IPC . Moreover, given the extensive delay of 16 years, the pendency of trial serves no fruitful purpose. A harmonious settlement has been reached between the parties, fostering social peace and restoring familial ties. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] has authoritatively held that while certain offences may be non-compoundable, the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers, can quash proceedings where the dispute is entirely private in nature and does not affect public peace or order. It was observed that where parties have amicably resolved their differences, and the prosecution is rendered meaningless, courts should not hesitate to quash such proceedings to uphold the spirit of justice, peace, and reconciliation. The present case falls within the principles laid down in Gian Singh (supra), as it pertains to a family dispute that has now been settled, and further prosecution would serve no useful purpose. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiji v. Radhika ( Criminal Appeal No. 2094 of 2011, decided on November 14, 2011 ) has categorically held that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. That power can be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. While a trial court may not be competent to permit compounding. The relevent portion of the aforesaid judgement is extracted below for quick reference- “13. That power can be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. While a trial court may not be competent to permit compounding. The relevent portion of the aforesaid judgement is extracted below for quick reference- “13. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code . Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked. 11. In such circumstances, allowing the prosecution to continue would not only burden the judicial system unnecessarily but would also thwart the spirit of reconciliation, which is paramount in private disputes of this nature. 12. In light of the oral and medical evidence, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out, and prolonging the proceedings would be unjust. It is in the interest of justice to bury the disputes, restore relations, and uphold social harmony. Given these circumstances, the compromise is accepted, and further prosecution would be an empty formality, devoid of any meaningful outcome. 13. Accordingly, the instant Ciminal Misc. petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Sessions Case No. 633/2014 are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of all charges. 14. The stay petition stands disposed of.