ORDER : 1. The present petition is to quash the proceedings of special sessions case No.14/2012 (State v. Gulam Qudarat Ullah & Ors.) pending before the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) North Bastar, Kanker, arising out of FIR/Cr.No.140/12 registered at Police Station Kanker. 2. An application was filed before the Sessions Court under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for compounding the offence. The same having been dismissed, the petitioners filed the present petition. 3. Case of the prosecution was that the petitioner No.1 Gulam Qudarat Ullah Khan was working as Branch Manager, Dena Bank and the petitioner No.2 Raj Sharma was the Dealer of Tractor whereas one Nathuram Jain was the borrower. It was alleged that the respondent No.3 Mangiya Ram Markam was made as guarantor, in respect of the loan transaction, without his knowledge by forging the documents. He came to know about the said fact when the loan was not being repaid and FIR was registered. After investigation, the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(ix)A & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1989’) was registered. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the compromise has been effected in between the parties and the entire loan was repaid. He would further submit that Nathuram Jain was initially arrayed as a petitioner No.3 in the present petition on the ground that he was impleaded by virtue of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The said order having been challenged in Cr.R.No.946 of 2015 by order dated 26-11-2020 this Court has exonerated him. Thus, the petitioners No.1 & 2 now remained as accused. Learned counsel would also submit that the statement of the complainant would show that the alleged dispute was private in nature and though the provisions of Sections 3(1)(ix)A & 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 was made applicable, but he has made a categorical statement the petitioners were not in know of the fact that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the entire loan has been repaid. He would submit that under the circumstances, no purpose would be served to continue Special Sessions Case No.14/2012 and thus, the same is required to be quashed. He would submit that under the circumstances, no purpose would be served to continue Special Sessions Case No.14/2012 and thus, the same is required to be quashed. To buttress his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 and Manoj Agrawal & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., [Spl. Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8242/2021, decided on 4-3-2022]. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/complainant would submit that the complainant made a categorical statement that the petitioners were not in know of the fact that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and he does not want to further prosecute his complaint. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 8. The statement of the complainant Mangiya Ram Markam was recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judl.) of this Court wherein a categorical statement was made by the complainant that he does not want to further prosecute his complaint, FIR and Special Sessions Case No.14/2012. He also made a statement that the petitioners were not in know of the fact that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the entire loan has been repaid for which he was made as guarantor. In an unequivocal terms the averments have been made that the compromise has been effected without any undue influence or pressure. 9. With respect to compounding the offence, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has laid down the following principles : “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 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. 10. Further, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 641 their Lordships again reiterated the view taken in case of Gian Singh (supra) and has laid down the following propositions : “15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions : (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra) while adjudicating the case under the provisions of the Act, 1989 held that “where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.” The Supreme Court further observed that “if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” 12. From the statement of the complainant, it is evident that he has entered into compromise and the entire loan amount has been repaid. The complainant further made a statement that the accused were not in know of the fact that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. From the aforesaid facts and the statement of the complainant, it is manifest that the alleged offence has not been committed on account of caste of the victim and as such it will not create any bar to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramawatar (supra). 13. Having considered the entire facts situation of case and particularly considering the statement of the complainant, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as cited above, I am of the opinion that continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process of law and no purpose would be served to continue the same. 14. In the result the petition is allowed. The proceedings of special sessions case No.14/2012 (State v. Gulam Qudarat Ullah & Ors.) pending before the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) North Bastar, Kanker, arising out of FIR/Cr.No.140/12 registered at Police Station Kanker (CG) is hereby quashed. The petitioners are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. 15. It is made clear that name of Nathuram Jain, who was initially arrayed as petitioner No.3 in the instant petition, be deleted from the cause title in view of the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.R.No.946 of 2015, during the course of the day.