The court can quash criminal proceedings based on the compromise between the parties if it deems that the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice, in line with the guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303.

Banwari Lal Sharma, J.

Learned counsel for petitioner Shri O.P. Sharma submits that since criminal misc. petition No. 4444/2015 has already been withdrawn today, and the rest of the defects are formal in nature, therefore, same may be waived.

2. In view of it, the defects pointed out by the registry are waived.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri O.P. Mishra submits that petitioner accused and respondent No. 2 complainant victim have settled their dispute amicably.

4. They have submitted their compromise before the Trial Court which has been verified and attested for offence punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. Since offence under Section 354 IPC is not compoundable, therefore, learned Trial Court refused to attest the compromise for the aforesaid offence. He submits that the dispute between parties is private in nature which they have settled amicably, therefore, after compromise continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner does not serve any fruitful purposed, therefore, the criminal proceedings for offence under Section 354 IPC against the present petitioner may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

5. Shri Kapil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 complainant victim Dr. Saroj Purohit supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner Shri O.P. Mishra.

6. Learned PP. Shri Rajendra Raghav also does not dispute in aforesaid facts.

7. In the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:-

"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 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 on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair