Subramonium Prasad DECISION
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing FIR No. 333/2020 dated 03.08.2020, registered at Police Station Jafrabad for offences under Sections 307/34 IPC.
2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present petition are as under:
a) On 02.08.2020, information was received from Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital stating that a person has been admitted in the hospital. The said information was entered vide DD No. 60A. ASI Naresh reached the hospital and collected the MLC of the victim, being MLC No. 4920/2020. In the MLC, the doctor has opined that the victim had been assaulted by some unknown persons and the nature of injuries was opined to be serious. It was found that the victim, Imran, was shifted to the RML Hospital for further treatment. The victim was found in the ICU of the RML hospital and he was unfit for the statement. Victim's father, Abdul Gaffar, gave a statement in the hospital itself stating that on 02.08.2020, at around 9:30 PM he was at Akhade Wali Gali when someone told him that someone is quarreling with his son Imran. It is stated that when he reached the spot he saw that one Hannan, Adnan @ Chote and the petitioner herein were quarreling with his son. It is stated that Hannan and the petitioner herein were holding his son and Adnan stabbed him in the stomach and they all escaped from the spot. It is stated that the victim was brought to the JPC Hospital and from there he was referred to the RML Hospital for further treatment. On the statement of the father of the victim, FIR No. 333/2020 dated 03.08.2020, was registered at Police Station Jafrabad for offences under Sections 307/34 IPC.
3. Investigation is complete.
4. The material on record disclose that Hannan was declared as a Proclaimed Offender. The opinion on the MLC was obtained from the RML Hospital and the injuries were found to be serious in nature. Charge-sheet has been filed. In the charge-sheet it is stated that there is enough material against the accused to proceed ahead against him under Sections 307/34 IPC.
5. It is stated that in the interregnum the parties have entered into a compromise. The compromise deed has been filed along with the petition. The compromise deed shows that the accused will pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation/medical/other charges. It is stated that out of Rs. 3,00,000/- the accused have paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the victim at the time of signing of the settlement agreement and the remaining amount will be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR.
6. Heard Mr. Rishipal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, learned APP for the State and perused the material on record.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the parties reside in the same area and they are distantly related to each other. He states that the victim was attacked only with a kitchen knife. It is stated that the parties have decided to settle their disputes and have entered into compromise. He contends that in order to ensure that both sides live peacefully the FIR be quashed.
8. Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, learned APP for the State, strongly opposes the instant petition and had held that the petitioner has been stabbed twice in the abdomen and has suffered serious injuries. She states that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section