The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

JUDGMENT :

1. Shri Mohd. Imran Khan, Advocate, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Sameer Singh, the learned counsel for applicant, Dr. Gyan Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Mohd. Imran Khan, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case Crime No. 0050 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow as well as charge sheet dated 25.02.2021 and summoning order dated 01.11.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C. Court No. 50, District Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in compliance of the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6426 of 2022, the applicant filed compromise deed dated 09.09.2022 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Lucknow and the concerned court vide its order dated 27.09.2022 verified the said compromise in presence of the applicant and opposite party no. 2, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that his client is not interested to contest the case.

6. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that since parties have entered into compromise, which has also been verified by the court below, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings of the aforesaid case go on further.

7. Learned counsel for the parties has drawn attention of this Court and placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their case.

(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & Others 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) Dimpey Gujral And Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697.

(iv) Narendra Singh And Others Vs. State of Punjab And Others 2014 (6) SCC 466.

(v) Yogendra Yadav And Others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2014 (9) SCC 653.

8. Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr,; (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

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 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 quashed on the ground that the offender and vi