The main legal point established is that the court can quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a genuine settlement between the parties, especially in cases where the offences are not of a serious nature, and the settlement does not contravene the objectives of the relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray, J. - All six Petitioners, who are accused persons in Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No. 320 dated 9th November, 2016 have prayed to quash the order of cognizance dated 25th August, 2018 of the learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal in CT (Spl.) Case No.99 of 2016.

2. The offences are under Section 147/148/341/323/294/506/379/ 427/149 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act on the allegation that the Petitioners assaulted Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 by fist and kick blows in prosecution of their common object and took Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- when the Opposite Parties were present in the fast-food shop. Opposite Party No.2 is the informant.

3. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences stated above and cognizance has been taken by the Special Court consequently.

4. It is submitted that the parties belong to the same locality and the incident happened in a fit of instant rage. In the meantime, the dispute between the parties has been settled through mutual concession and none of the parties want to pursue the dispute further. All of them are now staying peacefully in the locality having resolved the dispute and differences between them. So they have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance as no fruitful purpose would be satisfied by proceeding further.

5. Both the victims as Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 have filed their affidavits entering appearance through their lawyer. They have tendered their concession that the disputes between them have been settled mutually and they do not want to proceed further against the Petitioners anymore.

6. The law is no more res integra in the matters of quashing of criminal proceeding on compromise between the parties,. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gold Quest International Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2014) 15 SCC 235, while relying on several earlier decisions including the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675] and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, [(2012) 10 SCC 303] have held (at para 8) as follows:

'In view of the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases, we are of the view that in the disputes which are substantially matrimonial in nature, or the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have entered into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the same would not apply where the nature of offence is very serious like rape, murder, robbery, dacoity, cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and other similar kind of offences in which punishment of life imprisonment or death can be awarded. After considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law in quashing the FIR after not only the complainant and the appellant settled their money dispute but also the other alleged sufferers entered into an agreement with the appellant, and as such, they too settled their claims.'

7. Further, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Supreme Court has broadly, though not exhaustively, discussed the parameters of exercise of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground of settlement between the parties. The Supreme Court has held:-

'15.The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions:-

(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 recognizes and preserves powers whic