ORDER

1. By this petition the petitioner seeks invocation of the provision of section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR registered as Crime No.168/2014 at Police Station Mahila Thana Gwalior for the offence under section 292 of IPC and its further consequences i.e. RCT No.2418640/14 pending before JMFC Gwalior.

2. During pendency of the proceedings an application was filed under section 320 (2) of CrPC to the effect that parties have arrived at amicable settlement.

3. Considering the aforesaid, the matter was sent to the Principal Registrar of this Court. The parties presented themselves before Principal Registrar and their statements got recorded on 3.5.2021. The Principal Registrar has opined as follows :

“According to section 320 of Cr.P.C.the offences u/s. 509 of IPC has already been compounded by the trial Court and offence under section 292 of IPC is not compoundable.”

4. The Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika & Another, 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69, has been ruled that where there is no chance of recording conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility, the criminal case registered against the accused persons though it may not be compoundable can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under section 482 of CrPC. Further, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] in para 61, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :

"61. 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 or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 t