JUDGMENT Subba Reddy Satti, J. - Assailing the judgment dated 04.12.2017 in Crl.A. No. 162 of 2011 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 29.04.2011 in S.C. No. 130 of 2010 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, the accused filed the above criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 07.12.2017 and sentence of imprisonment was suspended. 3. Pending criminal revision case, I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022 were filed. 4. I.A. No. 1 of 2022 is filed under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C., by the defacto complainant, seeking to compound the offence against the accused. 5. I.A. No. 2 of 2022 is filed by the defacto complainant seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence under Section 354 of IPC. 6. The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. Against the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A. No. 162 of 2011 and the same was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence referred supra. Assailing the same, the present criminal revision case is filed. 7. The defacto complainant and the revision petitioner/accused are present in the Court and Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel identified the revision petitioner and Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel identified the defacto complainant and they are produced their respective Aadhar cards. 8. Assailing the same, the present criminal revision case is filed. 7. The defacto complainant and the revision petitioner/accused are present in the Court and Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel identified the revision petitioner and Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel identified the defacto complainant and they are produced their respective Aadhar cards. 8. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another 2012 (10) SCC 303 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the inherent powers of High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender, who has settled the dispute with the victim of the crime, and the alleged crime is not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. observed as under: 'In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat ( 2012 (12) SCC 401 ), this Court was again concerned with the question of quashment of an FIR alleging offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The High Court refused to quash the criminal case under Section 482 of the Code. The question for consideration was that inasmuch as all those offences, except Section 420 of IPC, were non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code, whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Bench elaborately considered the decision of this Court in Shiji v. Radhika, (2011 (100 SCC 705) and by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the criminal proceedings. It was held as under:- (Jayrajsinh' case, SCC paras- 13-15:- 13. In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2 - the Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (accused No. 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of settlement in so far as the Appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is concerned. 14. 14. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned. 15. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.' It is further held in the above judgment that- '61........... 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 predominatingly 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.' 9. In Saju P.R. vs. The State of Kerala1, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement between the accused and survivor, for doing justice to the parties concerned. 10. Taking into consideration the above authoritative pronouncements and in view of joint memo filed by revision petitioner and the defacto complainant and also affidavit filed with regard to compromise between the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this criminal revision case. 11. In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated 29.04.2011 in S.C. No. 130 of 2010 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, as confirmed in the judgment dated 04.12.2017 in Crl.A. No. 162 of 2011 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada is hereby set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. Fine amount paid by the accused, shall be refunded to him. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ----------- 1Crl A No. 1740 of 2019.