The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Sec. 482 of CrPC should be sparingly and cautiously exercised, and should not be used for heinous and serious offences. The timing of settlement is crucial in exercising the power under Sec. 482.

JUDGMENT

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE,J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard the parties with consent.

3. The petitioner approached this Court under Sec. 482 of CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ, order or directions thereby quashing FIR No.192/2015 dtd. 2/12/2015 registered with respondent no.2 and consequently criminal proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, on the ground that the petitioner and respondent no3/informant settled their dispute.

4. Heard learned counsel Shri Vibhav Amonkar appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor for respondents no.1 and 2 and Shri Nuno Noronha, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3.

5. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the parties we have gone through a copy of the chargesheet and relevant documents as well as the affidavit filed by respondent no.3.

6. Learned counsel Shri Amonkar appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged that though FIR was lodged against the applicant which culminated into filing of a chargesheet, subsequently the petitioner and the informant/respondent no.3 settled their dispute out of the court and therefore the petitioner has approached this Court since the offence alleged against him in the chargesheet is non-compoundable offence. He invited our attention to a specific pleading in the petition wherein it has been claimed that FIR was lodged purely on misunderstanding and misapprehension and the petitioner alongwith respondent no.3 discussed about it. The petitioner represented to respondent no.3 about true and factual position and accordingly both of them amicably resoled to withdraw/compound all criminal pending cases including the present FIR. Such averments are found in paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of the petition.

7. Learned counsel Shri Amonkar then placed reliance in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another,(2012) 10 SSC 203. and Narender Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab And Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466. to buttress his submissions regarding settlement of the dispute and powers of this Court to quash proceedings even after filing of the chargesheet and when the matter has been resolved amongst the parties in connection with commercial transaction and as such the exercise of undergoing full-fledged trial would be futile exercise.

8. Mr. Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the said application on the ground that the FIR was lodged in the year 2015 and after full-fledged investigation, chargesheet is already filed in the year 2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court at Panaji. Therefore, it is not proper to quash the entire proceedings including FIR at this stage when the police machinery was used by the informant for investigations and filing of the chargesheet.

9. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that though she is ready and willing to compound the matter by quashing FIR, the contentions raised by her in a Civil Suit bearing Civil Suit no.57/2016 filed against the petitioner for recovery of the same amounts would not be affected by the outcome of the present compounding. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit, respondent no.3 submitted that she is giving conditional consent for compounding the offence.

10. We have considered all the relevant contentions raised by the respective parties and after perusal of pleadings in the petition and more particularly, affidavit filed by respondent no.3, we consider it appropriate not to exercise our inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in granting the prayer in the petition for the reasons disclosed below.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) was dealing with the reference and this aspect is found in paragraph 52 as under:-

"The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the