The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, and the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

6. The Supreme Court in Arun Shankar Shukla V State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1999 SC 2554 held as under:

"...It is true that Under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of the process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. It is well-neigh settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the procedural law which empowered the convicted accused to prefer statutory appeal against conviction of the offence. The High Court has intervened at an uncalled for stage and soft-pedalled the course of justice at a very crucial stage of the trial.

7. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi V State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and the Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. The Supreme Court in Sushil Suri V Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2011) 5 SCC 708, considered the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and observed as under:

"16. Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is trite that although the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but it is not unbridled. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the Court exists."

9. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Surpeme Court has guided and encouraged to quash the FIR in circumstances wherein a compromise has been achieved. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or F