The High Court has the discretion to quash criminal proceedings, including FIRs, in cases where the dispute between the parties has been settled and the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.112/2018 dated 29.04.2018 of Police Station Chopasani Housing Board, District Jodhpur City West for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 427/34 IPC read with Section 11/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the POCSO Act'). In the instant case the respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 427/34 IPC read with Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act are pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 and the petitioners have compromised the matter and resolved the dispute between them amicably.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the impugned FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 427/34 IPC read with Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act against the petitioners may kindly be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded that the dispute between the respondent No.2 and petitioners has already been settled amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences.

4. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 06.08.2018, compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and the verification report of compromise has been mentioned in the case diary, so produced by learned Public Prosecutor in the Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. It is admitted that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the same has been verified by the Investigating Officer.

6. Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 9 JT 426, has held as below:-

"57. 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 th