JUDGMENT

N.S. Dhanik, J. - By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned charge-sheet; summoning order dated 04.12.2020 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 32 of 2020, under Sections 354, 354B, 504, 506, 509, 323 IPC and Section 3(i)(r) (w) (ii) of the S.C./S.T. Act, registered at P.S. Patti Dabralsyun-05, District Pauri Garhwal, pending before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal.

2. In the joint compounding application, duly supported by the affidavits of the applicants and the respondent nos. 2 & 3 it has been stated that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the respondent nos. 2 & 3 do not want to prosecute the accused applicant. Accused applicant (Manoj), respondent no. 2/complainant (Km. Ravina) and respondent no. 3/victim (Rakhi) are present in the Court today, duly identified by their respective Counsel. They admitted that they are entered into compromise.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 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 summarized 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 of 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 statues 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 despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer t