Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 23.7.2018 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 43 of 2018 (Soney Lal Vs. Udayveer Singh Yadav), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Eka, District Firozabad pending before Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad on the basis of compromise.

3. On the complaint moved moved on behalf of Soney Lal, Opposite Party No. 2, having been satisfied, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad has issued process against the present applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act vide impugned order dated 23.7.2018. During trial, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into a compromise. On the basis of said compromise, learned counsel for both the parties have urged that the matter may be decided and entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. This Court, vide order dated 14.7.2023, has referred the matter before the trial court for verification of the compromise, which is quoted hereinbelow:

"1. Compromise counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in the Court today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri P.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 43 of 2018 (Soney Lal vs. Udayveer Singh Yadav and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Eka, district-Firozabad, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act/Addl. Sessions Judge, court no. 2, Firozabad as well as summoning order dated 23.7.2018.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants and opposite party no. 2 had settled their dispute out of the court and they have filed compromise in the trial court and no dispute remains between them. He has made a prayer that the case may be disposed of according to the compromise. It was also prayed by way of compromise that the impugned proceeding against the applicants may be quashed in the light of compromise.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants regarding compromise/agreement of settlement made by the applicants.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-

(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS, 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, 2012 (10) SCC 303 [LQ/SC/2012/838 ;] .

(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR, 2013 (11) SCC 697.

(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS, 2014 (6) SCC 466 [LQ/SC/2014/327] .

(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND, 2014 (9) SCC 653 [LQ/SC/2014/734] .

Though Section-354 I.P.C. is a non compoundable offence but fact remains that the dispute is private in nature and the first informant (opposite party no.2), does not want to pursue the proceeding against the applicants any more.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also relied upon the judgment of The State of Madhya Pradesh VS. Laxmi Narayan and others in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019 decided on 05.03.2019 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph no.13 that :

"(i) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;"

9. Even in the cases which involved non-compoundable offences, their quashing has been approved by the Apex Court, if the nature of the offence is such which does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties. So far as the present case is concerned, it does not involve heinous and serious offences as categorized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case law and that the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences between the parties and also does not have serious impact on society.

10. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the trial court along with a certified copy of this order within 15 days from today and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification till 14.08.2023. Upon due verification, the trial court may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court till 4.9.2023.

11. Let a report be also summoned from the District Social Welfare Officer, Firozabad whether any compensation has been paid in the Complaint Case No. 43 of 2018 (Soney Lal vs. Udayveer Singh Yadav and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Eka, district-Firozabad, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act/Addl. Sessions Judge, court no. 2, Firozabad, or not.

12. Put up this case on 4.9.2023 as a fresh case along with the compromise verification report as well as report of District Social Welfare Officer, Firozabad.

13. Till the next date of listing, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants although trial of the case may continue."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 14.7.2023 passed by this Court, learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad has submitted its verification report dated 23.8.2023 along with copy of the compromise application dated 4.8.2023 and affidavit (paper No. 19 Aa and 20 Ba respectively) and verification order dated 4.8.2023 endorsed at the reverse side of first page of the compromise application. A copy of the common affidavit of the accused and the complainant was filed in support of the compromise application. As per the verification report dated 23.8.2023 and the compromise verification order dated 4.8.2023, the parties were present before the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of the compromise, accordingly, the compromise have been verified. Along with report, learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad has appended a copy of the communication dated 18.8.2023 made by the District Social Welfare Officer as well apprising the court that no compensation has been given to the victim/complainant in Complaint Case No. 43 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) D, Dha of the SC/ST Act.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the compromise verification order dated 4.8.2023 and the verification report dated 23.8.2023, the instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceeding against the present applicants in pursuance of the summoning order dated 23.7.2018 may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. They are living peacefully without any grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675 [LQ/SC/2003/383] .

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667 [LQ/SC/2008/1879] .

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2008/2084] .

(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 [LQ/SC/2012/838 ;] .

(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 [LQ/SC/2014/327] .

6. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843 [LQ/SC/2017/1450] , Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-

"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and.

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

7. Learned AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

9. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 23.8.2023, compromise verification order dated 4.8.2023 and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.