The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, based on a settlement agreement between the parties, guided by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 295/1997 registered at Police Station Kalkaji, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 408/420/468/471/477A/120B/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom 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. Thereafter petitioners and respondent No. 2 approached the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 29th September, 2014 and settle the dispute. Vide the aforesaid settlement, it was agreed that petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 7,15,000/- to respondent No. 2. Out of the said amount an amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- had already paid to respondent No. 2 and balance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs has been paid today by cash in Court.

3. Respondents No. 2 is personally present in the Court through counsel. Learned counsel on instructions from respondent No. 2 submits that he has received the total amount and no issue whatsoever against the petitioner is left. The said respondent does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submit that the present matter has been amicably settled, they have received the entire agreed amount and have no objection if the present petition is allowed.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed and the case is pending for prosecution evidence. Since respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the case further against the petitioner, no purpose would be served if the petitioners are directed to face trial. Therefore, the State has no objection, if this Court allows the present petition.

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 servant