The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in cases with overwhelmingly civil flavor or private and personal nature, where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak due to compromise between the offender and victim, to prevent oppression and prejudice to the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against them before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.l, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court1) in Criminal Regular Case No.16907/2015, whereby the trial court vide order dated 4.12.2021 has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 406IPC, but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the same is not compoundable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the Women Police Station, Distt. Udaipur has registered an FIR No.38/2014 against the petitioners. After investigation, the police filed charge- sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.l, Udaipur, wherein the trial is pending against them for the aforesaid offences.

3. During the pendency of trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners may be terminated.

4. The trial court vide order dated 4.12.2021 has allowed the parties to compound the offence under Section 406 I.P.C, however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.

5. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the said criminal proceedings against him.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 406 I.P.C, there is no possibility of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

7. 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 petitioners in relation to the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 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