The High Court may quash criminal proceedings when parties have settled amicably, provided the nature of the offence allows for compounding and continuation would constitute an abuse of the court process.

ORDER :

K Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-9, seeking to quash the proceedings in SC No.37 of 2021 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Vijayawada, NTR district.

2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3(l)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. 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 IA Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 seeking to permit them to compound the offences and to record the compromise.

4. Today, when the matter is taken up, petitioners and 2nd respondent herein are present before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 2nd respondent have identified both the parties in the open Court, This Court has questioned the de facto complainant with regard to compromise and he has categorically stated to that extent that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with the accused.

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, 2012(9) Scale 257 the Hon'ble Apex court held thus: (para 57)

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes ^of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases. High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest o