The court has the power to quash proceedings even in cases involving heinous and serious offences, considering factors such as the stage of the proceedings, the possibility of conviction, and the impact on the parties involved.

JUDGMENT

K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.22 of 2023 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavari district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2) (n), 313, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. It is represented that both the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of the Court at the intervention of their elders and well wishers. In view of the settlement arrived between both the parties, they filed I.A. Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2023 seeking to permit them to compound the offences and to record the compromise and consequently to release the petitioner No.1/A-1 from jail.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on a decision in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & another (2022) 8 Supreme 341, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

'12. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in relying on various judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal position that in heinous and serious offences like murder or rape, the Court should not quash the proceedings. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narender Singh v. State of Punjab (2022) 8 Supreme 341, which read thus:

'29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of th