Key Points: - The High Court’s use of Section 482 to quash FIRs in cases with settlement is not the same as compounding under Section 320; it depends on ends of justice and nature of the offence. (!) (!) (!) - Offences with a civil or commercial flavour may be quashed if settlement renders conviction remote and continuation would cause oppression, but serious/ societal-impact offences (e.g., extortion, forgery, conspiracy, economic fraud) generally should not be quashed. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The decision to quash depends on facts, gravity of the crime, absconding, antecedents, and public interest; mere settlement does not guarantee quashing in offences affecting society or financial systems. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Propositions from Gian Singh guide whether to exercise inherent jurisdiction to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, with emphasis on case-specific assessment of nature and gravity of offences. (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes that for economic offences involving financial systems, continuing prosecution serves public interest even if settlement occurred. (!) (!)

What is the scope of Section 482 in quashing criminal proceedings where there is a settlement between offender and victim?

What factors should guide the High Court in exercising inherent powers under Section 482 to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding?

How do principles from Gian Singh and subsequent cases apply to cases involving economic offences or land-related fraud when settlement exists?