The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR 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. The timing of settlement plays a crucial role in deciding whether to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the charge sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2098 of 2014, captioned as State vs. Pankaj Kumar Singhal, for the offences punishable under Sections 409 of IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. A compounding application being CRMA No. 1249 of 2016 is filed by the parties to show that the parties have buried their differences and settled their disputes amicably. Respondent no. 2/Secretary, Jiwan Tiwari is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Advocate. He submitted that Kashipur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., in it’s meeting of Board of Directors has resolved on 11.06.2016 that the offence against the accused-applicant be compounded. Respondent No.2 Jiwan Tiwari, Secretary, has been authorized to compound the offence as per the aforesaid resolution. Learned counsel for the parties have placed a copy of the resolution dated 11.06.2016 before this Court to submit that the parties have settled their disputes amicably, inasmuch as, the amount misappropriated has been deposited by the accused-applicant with the respondent-Bank.

3. Offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC is a non-compoundable. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is whether the respondent no.2 should be permitted to compound the offence against the applicant or not?

4. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held as below:

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”

Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.

6. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below:

“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 w