ORDER : Heard Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M.S. Achyutha Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the first respondent – de facto complainant; and Mr. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for quashing of offences arising out of C.C.No.320 of 2015 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, culminating in conviction vide the judgment and order dated 10.12.2015 now pending in appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2015 on the file of the learned IX Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he is a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing Patancheru constituency in the district of Sangareddy having been elected on the ticket of Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) party. 4. First respondent as the de facto complainant had lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 07.05.2014 before the police station BDL Bhanur being FIR No.102 of 2014 registered under Sections 323, 342, 386, 448, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In the complaint it was alleged that one person by the name of Mahesh, a resident of Patancheru constituency and working as Packing Assistant in a company called Varsatile Company had died on 05.05.2014. Alleging foul play, petitioner along with 70 persons had trespassed into the company premises and abused the management in filthy language. It is alleged that he forcibly took a cheque for an amount of Rs.15,00,000-00 for payment to the family of the deceased Mahesh. 5. On completion of investigation police filed charge sheet on 28.02.2015 and taking cognizance of the same a case was registered as C.C.No.320 of 2015 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy where trial was conducted. On conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, delivered the judgment on 10.12.2015. While the petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section 323 IPC, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 342, 386, 447, 504 and 506 IPC. 6. Aggrieved by the above conviction, petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2015 and is stated to be presently pending. 7. 6. Aggrieved by the above conviction, petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2015 and is stated to be presently pending. 7. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed a petition under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2015. It was mentioned that the first respondent i.e. the de facto complainant had approached the Court below and had filed an affidavit dated 12.11.2021 requesting the Court below to compromise the complaint. However, the same was returned by the appellate Court below on the ground that the offences are non-compoundable in nature. 8. It is stated that first respondent is not willing to continue criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 9. Petitioner has contended that the allegations made by the first respondent in FIR No.102 of 2014 on the basis of which he has been convicted and now is in appeal, are personal in nature; there is no infringement to public peace and tranquillity. Therefore, first respondent is not willing to continue with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, first respondent has taken the above stand voluntarily without receiving any kind of pressure or coercion. It is in such circumstances that the present petition has been filed. 10. During the hearing a joint memo dated 26.12.2021 came to be filed by the petitioner and the first respondent. In paragraph No.6 of the memo it is stated that upon intervention of elders and well wishers first respondent i.e., de facto complainant is willing to withdraw the charges / complaint against the petitioner. It is further stated that during the pendency of the appeal before the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, petitioner had filed a petition under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. First respondent filed an affidavit in support of such petition on 12.11.2021. However, learned appellate Court below returned the said petition on the ground that the offences on which petitioner has been convicted are non-compoundable in nature. First respondent has expressly stated that he is not willing to continue criminal proceedings against the petitioner any further. That apart, the charges against the petitioner are personal in nature and there is no infringement to public peace and tranquillity. Such stand of the first respondent has been taken voluntarily without any pressure or coercion. 11. First respondent has expressly stated that he is not willing to continue criminal proceedings against the petitioner any further. That apart, the charges against the petitioner are personal in nature and there is no infringement to public peace and tranquillity. Such stand of the first respondent has been taken voluntarily without any pressure or coercion. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court, at the stage of pendency of appeal before the lower appellate Court, the charge against the petitioner can be quashed by the High Court by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (ii) Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLineSC 966 and (iii) Ramgopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLineSC 834. 12. Mr. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that his client is no longer willing to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 13. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 14. Section 320 of Cr.P.C deals with compounding of offences. As per Sub Section (1), the offences specified in the first two columns of the table may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column. Sub-Section (2) says that the offences punishable under the sections of IPC specified in the first two columns of the table may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column with the permission of the court before which any prosecution for such offences is pending. In so far, Sections 342, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC are concerned, those are compoundable under Sub-Section (1) of Section 320. However, Section 386 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence. 15. A five Judge Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh V. State of Punjab, (2007) 4 CTC 769 was called upon to determine, inter alia, the question whether the High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceeding or to allow compounding of offences in cases which have been specified as non-compoundable offences under the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The five Judge Bench referred to various case laws and thereafter framed the following guidelines. “21. “21. … ‘(a) Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case. (b) Cases pertaining to property disputes between close relations, which are predominantly civil in nature and they have a genuine or belaboured dimension of criminal liability. Notwithstanding a touch of criminal liability, the settlement would bring lasting peace and harmony to larger number of people. (c) Cases of dispute between old partners or business concerns with dealings over a long period which are predominantly civil and are given or acquire a criminal dimension but the parties are essentially seeking a redressal of their financial or commercial claim. (d) Minor offences as under Section 279 IPC may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the parties. Yet another offence which remains non-compoundable is Section 506(II) IPC, which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under Section 506 IPC in most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shades of intention. Another set of offences, which ought to be liberally compounded, are Sections 147 and 148 IPC, more particularly where other offences are compoundable. It may be added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act 17 of 1999 (Section 3) has made Sections 506(II) IPC, 147 IPC and 148 IPC compoundable offences by amending the schedule under Section 320 CrPC. (e) The offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. Offences committed by public servants purporting to act in that capacity as also offences against public servant while the victims are acting in the discharge of their duty must remain non-compoundable. Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter VII (relating to army, navy and air force) must remain non-compoundable. (f) That as a broad guideline the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. (f) That as a broad guideline the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. While parting with this part, it appears necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. The settlement must be just and fair besides being free from the undue pressure, the court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution.’ To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the court to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the section itself i.e. ‘to prevent abuse of the process of any court’ or ‘to secure the ends of justice’.” 15.1. Thus from the above, it is seen that according to the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, as a broad guideline, offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. 16. The above decision of the five Judge Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court was considered by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra); whereafter Supreme Court summarised the position that 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 Cr.P.C. 17. In the recent decision in Ramgopal case (3 supra) Supreme Court examined the question of law concerning the power of a High Court to quash proceedings emanating from non-compoundable offences which have no impact or depriving effect on the society at large on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim – complainant. It has been held as follows: 11. It has been held as follows: 11. True it is that offences which are ‘non-compoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of ‘compoundable’ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. 12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. 13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra). 14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.” 18. In other words, it has been held that the High Court having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute with the victim willingly consenting to nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure that the felony even if it goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyse the very object of administration of criminal justice. Criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial had concluded or appeal against conviction has been dismissed. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. Criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial had concluded or appeal against conviction has been dismissed. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. Thus, grave or serious offences or offences involving moral turpitude or having a harmful effect on society or involving matters concerning public policy have the potential to impact the society at large and should not be quashed. 19. Supreme Court in Ramawatar case (2 supra) put in a further caveat by holding that power under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C are exercisable in post conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other judicial forum. Pendency of legal proceedings is the sine-qua-non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensured post the attainment of all legal remedies, annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. 20. Having noticed the legal position as above, Court is of the view that the criminal charges against the petitioner as affirmed by the learned trial Court which is pending before the appellate Court in appeal are personal in nature. Complainant has also come forward to amicably settle the matter. Therefore, considering all aspects of the matter, Court is of the view that as desired by the parties a quietus may be given to the dispute between the two parties. 21. Accordingly, the offences arising out of C.C.No.320 of 2015 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, are quashed. Consequently, judgment and order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the said Court would also stand quashed. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2015 on the file of learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy would stand closed. 22 Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.