ORDER : 1. I.A. No.2625 of 2019 has been filed stating therein that on the intervention of friends and well wishers, the petitioner and the O.P. No.02 have compromised and amicably settled the dispute. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the SC/ ST Case No.10 of 2017 arising out of Complaint Case No.1076 of 2015 was instituted by O.P. No.02 for the offence under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (For short 'the Act'). It is submitted that the complaint was lodged with respect to the occurrence dated 07.05.2015 and the complainant in para–1 & 4 of the complaint petition has categorically stated that he was working as the driver of witness No.03 namely, Nand Kishore Sahu, who is an agnate of the present petitioner. That for the same occurrence, Nand Kishore Sahu had lodged Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.81 of 2015 on 09.05.2015 as would be evident from Annexure – 2. That the petitioners had faced the trial in the said case and were acquitted by order dated 16.07.2018, passed in G.R No.2743 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. That the complainant of the present case is an employee of the said Nand Kishore Sahu, i.e., witness No.03, and has admitted that the said case was instituted by him at the behest of Nand Kishore Sahu. It is submitted that as per the allegation made in the complaint, offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ ST Act, is not made out. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, i.e., O.P. No.02, has submitted that good sense has prevailed upon both the parties and they have amicably settled the dispute. That O.P. No.02 does not want to proceed further with the prosecution of the case. 4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, the legal question which arises is whether the compromise with respect to the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, can be permitted in the present case. In a catena of decisions, distinction has been drawn with respect to quashing of criminal proceeding in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, on the basis of the compromise in non-compoundable offence. In a catena of decisions, distinction has been drawn with respect to quashing of criminal proceeding in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, on the basis of the compromise in non-compoundable offence. It is well settled principle that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like, rape, murder, dacoity, etc., cannot be quashed and the difference in opinion of the courts with respect to quashing of criminal proceeding in non-compoundable offences has been put to quietus by the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi narayan & Ors., 2019 OnLine SC 320. It has been held that if the offence mentioned is non-compoundable, but the ingredients to constitute such offence is not available on record then the criminal proceeding can be quashed. The enshrined principle is that whether the offence is made out or not, has be decided on the basis of the material facts available on record. 5. It is evident from the annexures, that for the same occurrence Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.81 of 2015 was lodged by Nand Kishore Sahu, who is witness No.03 in the instant Complaint Case No.1076 of 2015. In the F.I.R lodged by Nand Kishore Sahu in Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.81 of 2015, there is no allegation of use of abusive language by the petitioner. It is not alleged that the petitioner had abused the complainant by his caste name. In the instant case the complainant has alleged that he was abused by his caste name, and he has admitted that he has acted at the behest of witness No.03 namely, Nand Kishore Sahu. He has admitted that Nand Kishore Sahu meets his day to day requirements and he is obligated to him. The said complaint was lodged on 11.05.2015 for the occurrence dated 07.05.2015 and for the same occurrence Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.81 of 2015 was also lodged by Nand Kishore Sahu in which the petitioner faced trial and was acquitted by order dated 16.07.2018 passed in G.R. No.2745 of 2015, by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 6. Considering the gamut of the entire case, it is evident that for the same occurrence the present case has been instituted and the allegation of abusing the complainant by his caste name has been added to make out a case under SC/ST Act. 6. Considering the gamut of the entire case, it is evident that for the same occurrence the present case has been instituted and the allegation of abusing the complainant by his caste name has been added to make out a case under SC/ST Act. The complaint case has been lodged without following the procedure as prescribed under Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules, hence the allegation of the offence under SC/ ST Act is not sustainable. Thus in view of the discussions made hereinabove, it is held that the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, is not made out. The offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of the I.P.C are compoundable. Now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the joint compromise petition has been filed wherein O.P. No.02 has stated that he does not want to proceed further with the case, accordingly, the compromise is allowed and accepted. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1076 of 2015 as well as the order taking cognizance are, hereby, quashed. 7. With the said observations, the criminal miscellaneous petition and I.A. No.2625 of 2019 stand allowed. Petition allowed.