ORAL ORDER

1. The respondent-complainant is present before the Court and is identified by learned advocate Mr. Karan Vyas. He is permitted to appear on behalf of respondent-complainant and to file his Vakalatnama with the Registry.

2. Rule. Learned APP and Mr. Karan Vyas, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. With consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally.

3. By way of this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside, on the basis of settlement, the impugned complaint being FIR No.II-59 of 2019 registered with Talod Police Station, Sabarkantha for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, “the Atrocities Act”) and all the consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and therefore, there remains no ill-will or dispute between them. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned complaint may be quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties.

5. The respondent-original complainant, who is present before the Court, has affirmed about the factum of settlement of dispute with the petitioner and has also filed an affidavit to that effect, which is on record. Before the Court and in affidavit also, he has consented to the quashment of the impugned complaint filed against the petitioner.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that any first information report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

7. This Court heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. The offence alleged against the petitioner is non-compoundable but, it could be compounded with the permission of the Court. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, the Apex Court has set out the criteria wherein the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court could be exercised for quashing a First Information Report on the basis of settlement. In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:

“61. 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 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 victims 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 f