The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings in certain circumstances, including where the parties have settled their dispute and there is no possibility of conviction.

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, (North) No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.411/2017 for the offence under Section 67 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act of 2000').

2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station Hiran Magri, Udaipur has registered an FIR No.34/2015 against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under Section 66A of the Act, 2000 in the trial court and during the course of trial, the trial court discharged the petitioner from the offence under Section 66A of the Act of 2000, however, charge for the offence under Section 67 of the Act of 2000 was read over to the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, before framing of the charge against the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have moved an application while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 31.5.2018 has rejected the application on the ground that the offence is not compoundable by virtue of provisions of the Act of 2000.

3. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 67 of the Act of 2000. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 67 of the Act of 2000 because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offence punishable under Section 67 of the Act of 2000.

4. 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 that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedin