JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. By medium of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code'), the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.23/2013, dated 07.02.2013, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 506 of IPC as well as consequential proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No. 41/2 of 2013 titled 'State of H.P. versus Ravi Shankar', pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was accused of obstructing the complainant/respondent No.2, who while discharging her official duties as a Constable in the H.P. Police was deployed at District Bilaspur on 07.02.2013. Thereafter, on the basis of her statement, an FIR came to be registered and after completion of the investigation, challan was submitted in the Court and the same is pending consideration in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur.

3. It is on the basis of the compromise entered inter se the petitioner and respondent No.2 that the prayer for quashing has been made in this petition.

4. Petitioner and respondent No.2 are present in person and have been identified as such by their respective counsel(s).

5. However, the moot question is whether such a course is available to this Court.

6. To answer this question, certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court need to be noticed. In Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, it was held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. While exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact. It warned the High Court for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc.

7. The Principles laid down in Gian Singh's case (supra) were, in turn, reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. versus State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 4 JT 573 SC wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after summing up the legal position laid down the following guidelines for the High Court in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings, which read thus:-

"(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III)Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offe