Point of law: offences for which the appellants have been charged are infact offences against society and not private in nature. Such offences have serious impact upon society and continuance of trial of such cases is founded on the over ridding effect of public interests in punishing persons for such serious offences - Settlement even if arrived at between the complainant and the accused, the same cannot constitute a valid ground to quash the F.I.R. or the charge-sheet.

ORDER :

B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.

1. This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 607 of 2011 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, wherein charge sheet has been' laid against the petitioners - Accused Nos. 1 to 7 for the offences under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the D.P. Act').

2. The petitioners have raised several grounds in the quash petition. However, it may not be necessary for this Court to go into the merits of those grounds since it is represented by Mr. H. Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, that O.P. No. 380 of 2012 was jointly filed by respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant -wife, and the petitioner No. 1 - husband before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District for mutual divorce wherein all the pending civil and criminal disputes have been settled. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to clause No. 6 of the mutual divorce petition wherein it was stated that the wife shall withdraw the present criminal case i.e. C.C. No. 607 of 2011 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Sri G. Guru Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, states that compromise, in fact, has been entered into by the parties and that appropriate orders may be passed by the Court.

4. In the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the parties have agreed upon certain terms and conditions and in pursuance thereof a decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted in O.P. No. 380 of 2012 dated 17.09.2013 on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. The divorce decree, is part of the Court record vide USR. No. 2831 of 2020.

5. The offence under Section 498-A IPC is compoundable. However, the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are not compoundable, (Section 8(2) of the D.P. Act). It is fairly settled by several judgments of the Supreme Court that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences when there is a settlement between the complainant/victim and the accused (see Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

6. However, it has been reiterated time and again in several authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences and mental depravity viz. murder, rape, dacoity etc; the offences which are not private in nature and have serious impact on the society; the offences under special Statutes viz. the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, committed by public servants (see para 29.3 in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 (supra)).

7. Criminal cases which have overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves (see para 29.4 in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 (supra)).

8. The High Court has to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases (see para 29.5 in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 (supra)).

9. Section 320 Cr.P.C., enlists several offences which are compoundable without permission of the Court and with permission of the Court. As observed supra, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences where parties have entered into settlement. However, many of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court,