ORDER C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. This Criminal petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to record the compromise and quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 42 of 2012 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Court at Nampalli. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/informant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State. 2. A charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC). The case of the prosecution is as follows: "On 13-2-2012 at about 8.30 a.m. the statement of the 1st respondent/informant was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, Musheerabad police Station while he was taking treatment in male burns Ward at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The said statement discloses that the 1st respondent was residing in a house bearing D. No. 1-5-34 behind the police station, Musheerabad along with other roommates. On 11-2-2012 at about 7.30 p.m. there was a quarrel between the 1st respondent and one K. Venkata Rama Rao, his roommate, in connection with throwing out the dust from the room. In the said quarrel, both of them pushed each other and the K. Venkata Rama Rao, the petitioner herein, is alleged to have received an injury to his eye. Keeping this in mind, on the intervening night of 12/13-2-2012 at about 3.00 a.m. when the other roommates were sleeping, the petitioner is alleged to have poured boiled oil on the face of the 1st respondent. As a result of which the informant received burn injuries on his face, chest and shoulders. One Rajkumar who was sleeping by the side of the 1st respondent also received injuries, Basing on the statement of the injured, the above case came to be registered against the petitioner." 3. Along with the present Criminal Petitioner, the informant filed Crl. M.P.(SR) No. 34189 of 2013 along with a joint memorandum signed by the petitioner and 1st respondent seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence. Both the parties were present in the Court on 19-9-2013. When examined, the 1st respondent stated that he has settled the matter with the petitioner and has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. Both the parties were present in the Court on 19-9-2013. When examined, the 1st respondent stated that he has settled the matter with the petitioner and has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. When questioned as to why he wants to compromise the matter is spite of receiving burn injuries on the face which almost led to disfiguration of the face, the 1st respondent stated that he comes from a very poor family and that the petitioner has paid substantial amount towards his treatment and also for the future treatment which he has to take. He pleads that if any order is passed adverse to the petitioner, he will not be in a position to pay back the money received and it would be difficult for him to raise money for his future treatment. Both the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent are students and the 1st respondent was pursuing his 3rd year M.C.A. course by the time of the incident. The affidavit filed in support of the application would also disclose that there was a quarrel between the 1st respondent and the accused in which the petitioner received an injury near his eye. Thereafter, on the intervening night of 12/13-2-2012 the petitioner is alleged to have boiled oil in a vessel and poured the same on the face of the 1st respondent. The affidavit discloses that at the instance of elders and well wishers, both the sides have settled the dispute out of Court and that the compromise was arrived at without any coercion from any quarters. In fact, both of them seem to have approached the police requesting them to close the matter keeping in view their future. But the police expressed their inability stating that they have no jurisdiction to close the case. 4. Before proceeding further in this case, it would be appropriate to refer to certain cases dealing with the compounding of offences in non compoundable offences by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. In Kulwinder Singh and other v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) 818 All India Criminal Law Reporter, a larger Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under: "The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. In Kulwinder Singh and other v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) 818 All India Criminal Law Reporter, a larger Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under: "The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to proscribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation." It was further held as under: "The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bear under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice." 6. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Smabhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692 it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. 7. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. 7. In Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. and another AIR 1987 (2) SC 361, the Apex Court permitted the accused to compound the offence in a case registered for the offences under Section 326 of IPC though the injury sustained by the complainant therein was a grievous hurt. In Maheshchand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1998 SC 2111 , the Apex Court permitted the accused to compound the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. One of the factors which was taken into consideration for compounding the offence was that one of the accused was a practicing lawyer. 8. In Dault Zia v. Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi and others (1998) DLT 259, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was dealing with a situation where the accused assaulted the injured with a knife causing grievous injuries and case was registered for an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. As the dispute between the parties was settled by the intervention of the elders, and relatives, the Court while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. permitted the petitioners to compound the offence. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 CCR 57 : 2003 (1) JCC 541 , the Apex Court after referring to various authorities, held that if, for the purpose of securing ends of justice, quashing the First Information Report becomes necessary, Section 320 of Cr.P.C. would not be bar to exercise the power of quashing. 9. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 , the Apex Court held as under:-- "we need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly over burdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Apex Court held as under:-- "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 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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. 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding". 11. The question that arises for consideration in the present criminal petition is, "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to permit the parties to compound a case when the accused is involved in a non-compoundable offences?" 12. A reading of the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above would clearly show that Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to compound the offences which are non-compoundable by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. The said power can be exercised not only to avoid miscarriage of justice but also when the continuation of proceedings against the accused tantamounts to an abuse of process of law. 13. The averments in the charge sheet would clearly indicate that the manner in which incident took place is a ghastly one. The 1st respondent was present in the Court. The face of the 1st respondent got partially disfigured due to pouring of boiled oil. At the first blush, it appeared to be a case where no discretion should be exercised for compounding the offence between the parties though they have settled their dispute. But the victim, when examined narrated the difficulties faced by him in case the accused is not discharged from the case. At the first blush, it appeared to be a case where no discretion should be exercised for compounding the offence between the parties though they have settled their dispute. But the victim, when examined narrated the difficulties faced by him in case the accused is not discharged from the case. He stated that he comes from a very poor family and will be put to great hardship and loss if compromise is not recorded. According to him, the accused has paid substantial amount not only as compensation but also towards his future treatment and pleads that if any orders are passed affecting the compromise, he will be put to an irreparable damage. 14. An analysis of the facts on hand would lead to a situation where, on one hand the offence charged is gruesome in nature and on the other hand, if the compromise is not allowed, the victim would be put to great hardship which is apparent on the face of the record. Compensation to the victim can be awarded after the completion of trial only if the accused is found guilty. It may take some time. Further, the accused would definitely prefer an appeal against the said conviction and also against the order of awarding compensation. It appears that the 1st respondent herein cannot wait till then. Money is the need of the hour for him as he has to continue taking treatment for the partial disfiguration of his face. Further, even if the trial is allowed to go on, the possibility of accused getting convicted is remote and bleak since the victim who has received substantial amount will not support the prosecution case. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that though the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable and the incident in the present case being a ghastly one but in view of the circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if the victim is permitted to compound the offence with the accused. Accordingly, this Crl. M.P. (SR) No. 34189 of 2013 is allowed by recording the compromise. Consequently, Crl. P. (SR) No. 34187 is allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 42 of 2012 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. Petition allowed