U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 229 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 91 of 2016), State vs. Sahejama @ Sahjama, under Sections 307, 504 & 506 I.P.C., pending before the learned Sessions Judge, District Haridwar.

2. An affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 3 Atiqurraheman and the applicant Sahejama @ Sahjama to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Sahejama @ Sahjama is present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate. Respondents no. 2 to 5 are also present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Sunil Chandra, Advocate. Private respondents including Alishan (respondent no. 5/minor) submitted that parties have settled their disputes amicably and now they have no grievance left against the applicant. Respondents further submitted that they have no objection if the criminal proceedings initiated by them against the applicant are quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

3. Whereas the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC complained of against the applicant are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 307 IPC is not. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is- whether the private respondents should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the petitioner or not?

4. 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 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