ORDER :

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. It is jointly submitted at Bar by learned counsel for the parties that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the police had already submitted a negative final report before the learned court below. Thus, as per learned counsel for the parties, the complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].

Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:-

“…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 favour 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.”

4. It is also submitted that the aforementioned compromise coupled with the negative final report submitted by the police, the learned court below vide order dated 07.02.2019, while declining to accept the same, proceeded to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the appellants.

5. Heard learned counsel for both parties and, perused the record of the case and the judgments cited at the Bar.

6. This Court is conscious of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in:-

6.1 Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Ors. (2012) 9 SCC 460 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, with regard to the exercise of a High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, observed asunder:-

“The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or pr