ORDER Vibha Kankanwadi, J. (Oral) - Present application has been filed for invoking inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing First Information Report (hereinafter referred as ''FIR'') lodged at the instance of respondent No.2 with Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad. 2. The applicants have contended that, a crime has been registered on the basis of First Information Report given by respondent No.2/ informant wherein it was stated that, he was returning home at about 9.45 p.m. on 06-08-2016 by walk. He met applicant No.2 near Sutgirni Power House and demanded amount from him. Informant told that, he is not having any amount. Applicant No.2 started abusing him and assaulting him by hand. Even the respondent No.2 assaulted applicant No.2. When he received injuries informant went to Jawahar Nagar Police Station to lodge a report. Since he had sustained covert injury a memo referring him to medical examination was given and he was asked to go to Ghati Hospital. At that time his cousin went there and told him to go to house, and thereafter, by taking one Shabbir Bhai they would go to hospital. His cousin Juber and respondent No.2 went near their house at about 10.15 p.m., at that time applicant No.2 came with two to three persons, applicant No.2 had knife in his hand, he assaulted in the ribs of the informant and the second blow was received in his stomach. When his cousin Shaikh Afsar came there to rescue him, all the persons assaulted him by knife. Thereafter the brother of informant Sharif went to rescue them, he was also injured. Thereafter the informant was taken to hospital and an operation was performed upon him. He thereafter lodged the FIR on 07-08-2016. On the basis of said information offence vide Crime No. 267 of 2016 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 307, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the present applicants. 3. It appears that, the matter has been investigated and the charge-sheet has been filed. However, thereafter it appears that a compromise has taken place between informant, injured and the accused persons. Hence, the present application has been filed for quashing the FIR. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the documents. 3. It appears that, the matter has been investigated and the charge-sheet has been filed. However, thereafter it appears that a compromise has taken place between informant, injured and the accused persons. Hence, the present application has been filed for quashing the FIR. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the documents. All the injured persons and respondent No.2 have filed their affidavits stating that there was no previous dispute between the informant and applicants but some persons taking undue advantage had falsely implicated by taking name of the applicants that the applicants were present on the spot. It is stated that, after getting the information and meeting with some senior persons from the informant''s family members, the dispute is amicably settled. The applicants are the close relatives of each other, and therefore, on that count also they have decided to settle the matter in order to maintain harmony between the family. The injured persons have also filed affidavit-in reply in echo with the informant. 5. It is to be noted that a knife has been recovered on the basis of information given by applicant No.2. The injuries those were sustained were of grievous nature. No doubt such offences are required to be seriously viewed, however at the same time it is also required to be noted that the applicants and informant as well as injured are relatives of each other. They have settled the matter amicably. 6. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 , has laid down the following ratio ; "51. Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the Court and the composition of certain offences with the permission of the court. The offences punishable under the special statutes are not covered by Section 320. When an offence is compoundable under Section 320, abatement of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 of the IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. The offences punishable under the special statutes are not covered by Section 320. When an offence is compoundable under Section 320, abatement of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 of the IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. A person who is under 18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to contract compounding of offence but the same can be done on his behalf with the permission of the court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the court. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave of the court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the case may be. The re visional court is also competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. The consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence has to be in accord with Section 320 and in no other manner. " "52. The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. " "53. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, nothing in this Code which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. It begins with the words, nothing in this Code which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. " "54. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non. " "55. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedituret id sine qua resipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection. " "56. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection. " "56. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided. " "57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. " "58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed. " Further after referring to various other decisions it has been held that, "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. 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 victims 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-dominating 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. " Therefore, taking into consideration the above ratio we find that, this is a fit case where the inherent power of this Court should be exercised in order to secure the ends of justice. 7. Thus, when the parties have compromised the matter and now in the affidavit the informant and injured are coming with a case that somebody else in fact had committed the offence, definitely possibility of their turning hostile at the time of evidence cannot be ruled out. When they want to keep harmony in the family, it is a welcoming step, and therefore, we feel it necessary to exercise our inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. However, at the same time when the entire machinery has been misused by the respondent No.2 and now on some terms when the applicants have approached him and the injured, they have compromised the matter. Under such circumstance we intend to impose some cost and condition on the parties. Hence, following order. ORDER 1) The application is hereby allowed. 2) The First Information Report i.e. Crime No. 267 of 2016 and the further proceedings in the form of charge-sheet filed on the basis of the said FIR is hereby quashed and set aside. 3) The bail bonds of the applicant No.1 Sheikh Sohel Sheikh Ayyub stand cancelled. 4) Applicant No.2 Sayyed Baba Gulab @ Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Gulab be released from the jail forthwith. 5) Applicant No.1 Sheikh Sohel Sheikh Ayyub, No.2 Sayyed Baba Gulab @ Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Gulab and respondent No.2 Sheikh Areff Sheikh Kadir as well as injured namely Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Gani and Shaikh Sharif Shaikh Kadir, shall file an undertaking before this Court on or before 26th March, 2018 that they would deposit amount of Rs. 5) Applicant No.1 Sheikh Sohel Sheikh Ayyub, No.2 Sayyed Baba Gulab @ Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Gulab and respondent No.2 Sheikh Areff Sheikh Kadir as well as injured namely Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Gani and Shaikh Sharif Shaikh Kadir, shall file an undertaking before this Court on or before 26th March, 2018 that they would deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- each (five thousand) in the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad within a period of six (06) weeks from today. 6) The applicants, respondent No.2 and the injured persons should also state in the undertaking that, they will maintain good relations with each other and they would participate in peace programme undertaken by Jawahar Nagar, Police Station, Aurangabad for a period of two (02) years. 7) The Police Inspector should take note of this direction and call these persons in a peace keeping programs undertaken within the jurisdiction of the Police Station and issue certificate regarding participation of the applicants, respondent No.2 and the injured namely Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Gani and Shaikh Sharif Shaikh Kadir, every month.