The court can exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings and accept a settlement, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, public interest, and compensatory aspect of the offence.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J - Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant/respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ''Act'') against the petitioner on the allegations that a cheque of Rs. 2,20,000/- handed over by the petitioner to respondent in order to discharge his liability had been dishonoured. The complaint was decided in favour of the respondent by the learned trial Magistrate and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months and also awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- to the complainant/respondent.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 08.08.2016, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.01.2018, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition.

3. Today, when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the learned counsel for the respondent in the open Court and requested that the case be compounded.

4. However, the moot question is whether a compromise, at this stage, can be permitted to be effected between the parties where the petitioner has been charged under Section 138 of the Act. This court is not powerless in such situation and adequate powers have been conferred upon it not only under sections 397 read with Section 401 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) but also under Section 147 of the Act for accepting the settlement entered into between the parties and to quash the proceedings arising out of the proceedings, which have consequently culminated into a settlement. This power has been conferred to subserve the ends of justice or/and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Though, such power is required to be exercised with circumspection and in cases which do not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc.

5. This question otherwise need not detain this Court any longer in view of the three Judges Bench decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai and others versus State of Gujarat and another, Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017, decided on 4th October, 2017, wherein after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the following broad principles for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code which read thus:-

"(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quash