JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner/accused - Sri.Prasanna Naidu s/o Subbarama Naidu is present along with his counsel. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State is also present before this Court and respondent No.2 - Sri.C.Satish Chandra S/o late Chikkana Naik is present. By waving the notice, Sri. Akki Manjunath Gowda, learned counsel files power to respondent No.2. The same is placed on record.

2. Today, they have filed a joint affidavit for having amicably settled the matter between them. In the said joint affidavit, it has been specifically mentioned that the complaint was filed during the pendency of civil litigation in O.S.No.7860/2017 before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Since the original complainant-Sri. Chikkanna Naik has expired, the second respondent is his son and he is staying in U.S.A and the parties have come to a conclusion to resolve the entire disputes between them and the respondent has undertaken to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.7860/2017.

3. Respondent No.2 who is present before the Court submits that he has no objection to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.

4. The joint affidavit has been signed by the petitioner/accused and respondent No.2/complainant and the same has been endorsed by their counsel.

5. The said joint affidavit has been placed on record.

6. At this juncture, it is worth to mention here itself a decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of J. Ramesh Kamath and Others v. Mohana Kurupt and Others, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 179 , wherein the Honble Apex Court has laid down certain principles as to under what circumstances the Court can quash the proceedings or compound the offences even in respect of a non-compoundable offences, wherein it has been held as under:-

'Held, power vested in High Court under S.482 is not limited to quashing proceedings within ambit and scope of S.320 of Cr.P.C., - In Gian Singh, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , it was clearly expounded that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of Cr.P.C., could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also be on a compromise between the offender and victim Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society Further, jurisdiction vested in High Court under S.482 Cr.P.C., for quashing criminal proceedings was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and pre-dominatingly civil flavour, particular offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or family disputes where wrong is basically private or personal. In all such cases, parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually.'

7. The Honble Apex Court has reiterated the principles of law laid down in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein it has been observed that the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and compound the offence. In the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it has been observed as under:

'8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of c