ORDER :- This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire proceedings dated 26.12.2012 in FIR No.584 of 2012 on the file of Taluq Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondent No.2/de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. On the report lodged by the second respondent/de facto complainant in Guntur Taluk Police Station alleging that the petitioners, who are working as police constables in Nallapadu Police Station extorted money of Rs.80,000/- to one lakh from the de facto complainant, Kunisetty Pavankumar on the pretext that he and some others were playing Kothamukka (playing cards). They returned the amount of Rs.45,000/- only at the intervention of elders and retained the remaining amount with them. Now the matter is under investigation by the SHO, Taluk Police Station, Guntur in FIR No.584 of 2012 for the offence under Section 384 of IPC. 4. While the investigation is pending, the petitioners filed a petition to quash the investigation in FIR No.584 of 2012 dated 26.12.2012 of Guntur Taluk Police Station. Thereafter, the de facto complainant filed an affidavit into the Court stating that at the intervention of the elders he and the accused compromised the matter and he has no objection to quash the FIR No.584 of 2012 of Taluk Police Station, Guntur. 5. However, now the de facto complainant states that he received the entire amount which was taken away by the petitioners from him. The fact remains that as per the allegations levelled in the First Information Report, the petitioners did not give back the entire amount allegedly seized from the second respondent/de facto complainant not did they deposit the same in the police station. 6. The offence alleged against the petitioners, who are the police constables is extortion punishable under Section 384 of IPC, a non-bailable and non-compoundable offence. Powers exercised by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C are distinct and different from the powers under Section 320 of IPC. While exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.c. this Court in appropriate cases can quash the FIR/charge sheet notwithstanding the fact the offence is non-compoundable. But the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.c. have to be exercised with great care and caution and very sparingly. While exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.c. this Court in appropriate cases can quash the FIR/charge sheet notwithstanding the fact the offence is non-compoundable. But the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.c. have to be exercised with great care and caution and very sparingly. Even where there is compromise between the parties this Court shall not invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR/charge-sheet without taking into consideration the nature of crime and its impact on the society at large. If the offence is not so serious and has no concern with the society at large, it can be quashed owing to compromise between the parties. The petitioners being the police constables, whose duty is to protect the citizens of their person and property allegedly raided a gambling place and forcibly seized an amount of Rs.80,000/- to one lakh from the de facto complainant gave him back part of the amount of Rs.45,000/-. If they seized the amount from gambling place, they have to deposit the amount in the police station along with the report. Obviously they did not do so. After filing of the quash petition, they brought the de facto complainant to the Court and the de facto complainant stated that he compromised the matter with the petitioners and therefore, he is not any more willing to prosecute the petitioners. Every case wherein the complainant or victim has no objection for quashment cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in a routine and mechanical way. Further in the present case, at this stage it is doubtful whether the de facto complainant voluntarily approached the Court for quashment in view of compromise or whether he is under threat or coercion by the police. It would be possible for the trial Court to ascertain the said fact after examining him at the trial. 7. In any event, this Court considers the offence as of exceptionally grave character concerning the society at large. An offence of this nature cannot be said to be a private one between the parties. This Court is not supposed to quash the FIR against the petitioners by exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If this Court adopts a liberal approach and proceed to quash the FIR, considering the factum of compromise between the parties the quashment would weaken the social defence and will result in miscarriage of justice. This Court is not supposed to quash the FIR against the petitioners by exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If this Court adopts a liberal approach and proceed to quash the FIR, considering the factum of compromise between the parties the quashment would weaken the social defence and will result in miscarriage of justice. This is not a fit case to quash the FIR. 8. Consequently, the criminal petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this criminal petition shall stand closed.