The court has the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences in the interest of justice, considering factors such as the nature and gravity of the crime, the possibility of conviction, and the impact on the accused and the victim.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners are alleged to be accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.8/2019 of Hindupur I Town police station, Ananthapuramu District, for the offences under Ss. 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, Sec.3(1) & 3(1)(s) of SC and ST POA Act, 1989, on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent alleging that one Santha Kumara who is relative of accused fell in love with the complainant who belongs to schedule caste and they both married. On 7/1/2019 one Nisar Ahammed engaged the complainant to clean his house site, without knowing the dispute between the accused and Nisar Ahammed. While attending to cleaning work on 8/1/2019 at 12.00noon A1 to A3 came there and scolded the complainant in the name of caste and kicked the complainant. The complainant was admitted in Government Hospital, Hindupur where the complainant gave statement to Station House Officer, Hindupur I Town police station, Ananthapuramu District who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.8/2019 under Ss. 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, Sec.3(1) & 3(1)(s) of SC and ST POA Act, 1989 and after investigation laid charge sheet and it was numbered as Sessions Case No.134/2021 on the file of the learned Special District & Sessions Judge, SC/ST Court, Ananthapuramu. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this court to quash the proceedings, under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. After issuing notice, in view of the joint memo filed by both the parties stating that they have entered into a compromise and seeking permission to compound the offence and to quash the proceeding initiated against the petitioners in the above said crime number, this Court directed for appearance of both the parties and also the investigation officer or any responsible Officer from the said Police Station to identify the parties, on 2/5/2022.

3. As directed by this Court, today i.e. on 2/5/2022 both the parties present in person and the Station House Officer, Hindupur I Town Police Station appeared before this Court, the identity of the parties has been verified. The defacto complainant i.e. 2nd respondent submitted that the statement dtd. 8/1/2019 was lodged with a misunderstanding with regard to property disputes, now he is no more interested to proceed with the matter.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused as well as learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there was a misunderstanding in relation to the money transaction and the parties having arrived at compromise, the defacto complainant not desires to proceed with the complaint and in view of the settlement, a joint memo has been filed, thereby sought for quashing of the F.I.R. against the petitioner, in the above said crime.

6. Learned counsel further relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303. while adjudicating the inherent powers of the High Court under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short Cr.P.C.] in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender, who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime, but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Sec. 320 Cr.P.C., it was observed that -

"In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 12 SCC 401. this Court was again concerned with the question of quashment of an FIR alleging offences punishable under Ss. 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The High Court refused to quash the criminal case under Sec. 482 of the Code. The question for consideration was that inasmuch as all those offences, except Sec. 420 IPC, were noncompoundable offences under Sec. 320 of the Code, whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code or by this Court under Article 136 of t