ORDER :

1. In Crl.P.No.7140/2019 Petitioner No.1/accused No.1Sri. Ramaiah S/o Devarabettappa, petitioner No.2/accused No.2Smt. Madamma W/o Madappa, petitioner No.3/accused No.3Smt. Munilakshmamma W/o late Marappa, petitioner No.4/accused No.4Smt. Leelavathi W/o Ramaiah and respondent No.2/complainantSmt. Lakshmamma W/o Jayakrishnappa are present along with their counsel.

In Crl.P.No.7139/2019Petitioner No.1/accused No.1Sri.Muniraju S/o Driver Muniswamappa, Petitioner No.2/accused No.2Sri. Manjunatha S/o Driver Muniswamappa, petitioner No.3/accused No.3Sri. Munichowda S/o Krishnappa, petitioner No.4/accused No.4Sri. J.Krishnappa S/o Thimmarayappa and respondent No.2/complainantSri.Ramaiah S/o Devarabettappa are present along with their counsel.

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1State in both the cases is present before this Court.

2. They have filed a compromise petition in both the cases under Section 257 read with 224 of Cr.P.C. In the said compromise petition, it has been contended that the petitioner/accused and respondent No.2/complainant are the residents of same village. Due to fit of anger and misunderstanding, a complaint has been filed. Subsequently, the case has been registered and on the said basis, the charge sheet has been filed. At the interference of the elders and wellwishers, they are intending to compromise the matter to live happily in the very same village as the neighbours. It is further stated that pendency of the case will create layer in between the parties. Respondent No.2Complainant is present before this Court and submits that she has no objection to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings against the accused persons.

3. The said compromise petitions have been signed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.2/complainant and the same has bee endorsed by their counsel.

4. The said compromise petitions are placed on record.

5. At this juncture, it is worth to mention here itself a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J.Ramesh Kamath and Others Vs. Mohana Kurupt and Others, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 179, wherein the Hon’ble 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 noncompoundable 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 predominatingly 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.”

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the principles of law laid down in the case of Gian Singh Vs. 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 Vs. 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 recog