Quashing on compromise cannot override the gravity of a non-compoundable attempted murder charge.

Compounding of offences under Section 320 CrPC is distinct from the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings on compromise. Quashing requires a judicial assessment of whether the ends of justice justify interference, with due regard to the nature, gravity, and societal impact of the offence. An offence under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable, and where the record showed a serious planned assault causing grievous head injury, a monetary settlement could not remove the criminal character of the act. The High Court was therefore not justified in treating the matter as purely personal and quashing the conviction on compromise.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could quash a conviction for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of compromise between the parties, and whether the nature and gravity of the offence permitted such interference.

Analysis: The power to compound offences under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is distinct from the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Compounding is strictly controlled by statute, while quashing on compromise requires a judicial assessment of whether the ends of justice justify such exercise. For serious offences, the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. An offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is non-compoundable, and where the evidence showed a serious, planned assault with grievous head injury, monetary settlement could not erase the criminality of the act.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in treating the offence as merely personal or in quashing the conviction on compromise. The interference was set aside and the appeal was remanded to be decided on merits.

---