The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement agreements, guided by principles emphasizing the nature of the offences, the impact on society, the possibility of conviction, and the timing of the settlement.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the present petition; petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No. 401/2015 registered at PS-Naraina for the offences punishable under Sections 380/403/448/506/34/120B IPC against them.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2, Mr. Lalit Jaisingh. The case is at the initial state of investigation. Meanwhile, petitioners and respondent No. 2 have entered into an agreement dated 06.08.2015 whereby the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have settled their disputes amicably. Thus, respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioners.

3. Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court with his Counsel. He has been identified by SI Ashwani Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case. Ld. Counsel on instructions submits that matter has been settled between the parties vide MOU noted above and respondent No. 2 has no complaint whatsoever against the petitioners. Thus respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioner and if the present petition is allowed, he has no objection.

4. On the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that petitioners were enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.08.2015 subject to the condition that they will join the investigation. However, they have not joined the investigation till date. Ld. APP further submits that since respondent No. 2 has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and has come forward to quash the FIR mentioned above, the State has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

5. In view of the overall circumstances; and looking to the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; and also Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) Ends of justice.

(ii) To prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other han