JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7670 of 2020 (State vs. Aadesh and others), arising out of charge sheet no. 842 of 2018, dated 23.12.2018, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 352, 452 I.P.C., in Case Crime No. 1374 of 2016, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar, as well as bailable warrant dated 28.01.2019 on the basis of compromise between the applicants and opposite party no. 2.

3. The earlier order dated 13.10.2020, after taking into account the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants that parties have settled their dispute amicably, directed the court below to verify the factum of the compromise.

4. A report dated 04.12.2020 received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Kanpur is on record in terms whereof, the compromise between the parties has been verified.

5. In B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2003 (46) ACC 779 (SC), it has been held that High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings of FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent powers, where the dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties, who are willing to settle their differences amicably, and Section 320 Cr.P.C does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Similarly in Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I., (2008) 9 SCC 677, compromise was permitted and criminal proceedings were quashed on the basis of the compromise.

7. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, it has been held thus :

“61...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 flavour 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