JUDGMENT : N.W. SAMBRE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. Heard respective Counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition is arising out of the initiation of Special Case No. 8 of 2010 which is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Nandurbar for an offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 504, 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 37(1)(3)/135 of Bombay Police Act. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, one Waman Sonu Gavit claiming to be belonging to Bhil tribe, visited the shop of petitioner No. 1 for purchase of carbonated water bottles, in the transaction of which, certain difference occurred. The said Waman had a Son by name Sandeep, who in the evening went to the shop of petitioners herein, so as enquire as to why the petitioners herein have insulted his father Waman, resulting into scuffle and also cast related accusations. As such, Crime No. 35 of 2010 came to be registered at Visarwadi Police Station, Tq. Nawapur, District Nandurbar, for an offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 504, 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 37(1)(3)/135 of Bombay Police Act on 28.2.2010. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have invited attention of this Court to the fact that, the business relations in between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 are continued, as according to them, the F.I.R. under reference came to be lodged out of misunderstanding. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 have informed this Court that, they have settled their differences and respondent No. 2 is not interested in prosecuting the complaint before the Court. As such, joint request is made that, the F.I.R. in question be quashed. 5. The parties to the present petition have appeared before this Court and are identified by their respective Counsel but for petitioner No. 4 Tsmail Hasim Hajari, who is reported to be out of country. The personal absence of the said petitioner is not objected by the prosecution or Waman, who is the complainant. 6. 5. The parties to the present petition have appeared before this Court and are identified by their respective Counsel but for petitioner No. 4 Tsmail Hasim Hajari, who is reported to be out of country. The personal absence of the said petitioner is not objected by the prosecution or Waman, who is the complainant. 6. Our attention is invited to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sitaram s/o Madhavrao Wagh and Another vs. District Superintendent of Police and Others, 2014 ALL MR (Cri.) 1212, so as to canvass that, even the prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also be quashed, provided the party concerned/complainant consent for the same. The said judgment is based upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 : 2013 ALL SCR 171. 7. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh, 2013 ALL SCR 1711 (supra) is also required to be taken note of. The Apex Court in paragraph-57 reads thus: "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 F.I.R. 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. 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. 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 8. The Apex Court in the matter of Shiji @ Pappu and Others vs. Radhika and Another, 2011 CJ (SC) 239 : 2011 ALL MR (Cri.) 3915 (SC) has observed that, the High Court for the reasons to be recorded, is of the view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and with an intention to secure the ends of justice, may order compounding in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Apex Court, in the matter of Shiji @ Pappu and Others, 2011 ALL MR (Cri.) 3915 (SC) (supra) having regard to the law on the aspect of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code and powers to be exercised under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure, in paragraph-13 has observed thus:- "It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr. P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section482 Cr. P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr. P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section482 Cr. P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr. P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked." 9. As such, it will be apparent from the above observations, no fruitful purpose will be served, if the prosecution is continued against the petitioners. Even otherwise, the party has agreed for settlement before this Court, the continuation of prosecution will be abuse of process. 10. As such, in our opinion, present writ petition is liable to be allowed and as such, is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) which reads thus:- "(B) The proceedings of Special Case No. 8 of 2010 pending in the court of special judge at Nandurbar for the offences u/s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 504, 506, 323 of Indian penal Code and u/s. 3(1)(10) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s. 37(1)(3) of Bombay Police Act may kindly be quashed." Petition Allowed.