The main legal point established is that the court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with caution, considering the nature of the offences and the settlement between the parties.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 100/2013 registered at Police Station Darya Ganj, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 186/535/506/34 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as well as the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that the them, aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2, M.C. Meena. Thereafter, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 settled and compromised the matter vide compromise deed dated 15.09.2015, thus respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further against them.

3. Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court through counsel above named and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, under instructions submits that the matter has already been compromised with the petitioners vide aforenoted compromise deed. He further submitted that respondent No. 2 does not wish to proceed against petitioners and has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that the police charge sheeted the petitioners and matter is pending for framing of charge against them and is at initial stage of trial. However, present case was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2, who is working as Junior Engineer (Building) City Zone, NDMC and on the date of incident i.e. 15.04.2013 he reached in the area along with demolition squad to take the demolition action. The aforesaid persons reached there and not only created hindrance in the public duty, but also threatened him with dire consequences. All the petitioners abused him and even manhandled in the presence of Executive Engineer, City Zone, NDMC. The petitioners also used derogatory remarks about his caste with threat to face dire consequences. Thus, the petitioners being the public figure not only created hindrance in the public duty of respondent No. 2, but also threatened the latter. Petitioner No. 1 is the councillor of Turkman Gate; petitioner No. 2 is ex-MLA; petitioner No. 3 is sitting MLA from Balli Maran area and petitioner No. 4 is councillor from Kucha Pandit. If this Court is inclined to allow this petition, heavy cost may be imposed upon them.

5. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court 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; by observing as under:-

“61. The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact