The Court can exercise inherent powers under Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings if the settlement makes conviction unlikely and continuing the case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent–State and Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the original complainant–respondent no.2.

2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing CR No.II-30/2017 registered with Rajgadh Police Station, District Panchmahal for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and that there remains no grievance between them. Therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submitted that any FIR should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

5. The complainant – Sunilkumar Khetabhai Bhuriya is present before this Court and is represented by learned advocate Mr. Jatin Trivedi. Let his Vakalatnama be accepted on record. The complainant states that he was Talati-cum-Mantri in Village Dhodhambha and when the complainant asked for the requisite fees under the RTI Act, the issue arose and the person who intervened was villager who is at present Sarpanch of the Village. The complainant further states that he received compensation from the Government, which he would remit back to the State Exchequer. The complainant has also filed an affidavit stating that now there is no grievance between them and continuation of FIR would rather affect the society. The Court verified the contents of the compromise with the original complainant–respondent no.2 who is present before the Court. The original complainant affirmed the affidavit, wherein terms of settlement have been recorded. The original complainant categorically stated that the complainant has no grievance against the applicants and that the complainant has no objection to the quashment of the impugned FIR.

6. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the present matter would fall under the criteria laid down therein. In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:-

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while wo