JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr.S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1; and Mr.N.Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2 / de facto complainant. 2. This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.181 of 2022 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Court, at Nampally, Hyderabad following compromise reached between petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.2 who is the de facto complainant. 3. It appears that de facto complainant had lodged first information before the Banjara Hills Police Station against the petitioners alleging that petitioners in an unlawful assembly had assaulted police personnel on duty as well as damaged the property of Lord Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple on 9/8/2012. It further appears that the aforesaid incident had occurred following leasing out of the land by the Endowments Department to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISCKON) for development of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple. 4. People in the neighbourhood subsequently received notices from the Land Grabbing Court in the year 2010. This was construed, by the neighbouring people, to be at the instance of the ISCKON temple authorities. The incident happened on 9/8/2012 at 09.00 A.M., when petitioners and others came to the temple premises and told the temple authorities to leave the same. Petitioner No.1, at that time, was a Minister. Allegation is that petitioners had obstructed the police personnel while discharging their duties and had forcibly locked the gates of the temple premises confining a women devotee and two priests. This incident also led to stone pelting. 5. On a complaint lodged by the second respondent, Cr.No.745 of 2012 was registered in the Banjara Hills Police Station under Ss. 143, 353, 427, 504, 506 and 342 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.). 6. Police investigated the case and thereafter filed charge sheet under Ss. 143, 353, 427, 504, 506 and 342 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. The Court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Court, at Nampally, Hyderabad took cognizance thereof, following which, C.C.No.181 of 2022 has been registered. 7. It is submitted that at the intervention of elders and well-wishers, petitioners and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and agreed to settle the dispute amicably. 7. It is submitted that at the intervention of elders and well-wishers, petitioners and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and agreed to settle the dispute amicably. Accordingly the matter has been amicably settled. 8. In this connection, I.A.No.3 of 2023 has been filed which details the compromise settlement between the parties. That apart, a joint memo of compromise has also been filed. 9. Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. deals with compounding of offences. It is seen that except Sec. 353 I.P.C., all the other Ss. with which petitioners are charged with, are compoundable. Insofar as Sec. 353 is concerned, it deals with assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. Though, it is not compoundable, it carries a sentence of maximum punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. 10. This Court in the case of Gudem Mahipal Reddy Vs. Sri Potti Chandu Kumar, (2022) Vol.II ALD (Criminal) 148. had allowed a petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., by quashing the criminal proceedings despite conviction of the accused persons. The aforesaid judgment was rendered upon compromise arrived at between the accused and the de facto complainant. In that case the accused was convicted for offences under Sec. 323, 342, 386, 448, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. 11. A five Judge Bench of the Punjab and 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. The five Judge Bench referred to various case laws and thereafter framed the following guidelines: "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. (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 Sec. 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 Sec. 506(II) IPC, which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under Sec. 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 Ss. 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 (Sec. 3) has made Ss. 506(II) IPC, 147 IPC and 148 IPC compoundable offences by amending the schedule under Sec. 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. While parting with this part, it appears necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. 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 Sec. 482 CrPC. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Sec. itself i.e. 'to prevent abuse of the process of any court' or 'to secure the ends of justice'." 11.1. Thus from the above, it is seen that according to the Full Bench of the Punjab and 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 a position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. 12. The above decision of the five Judge Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court was considered by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 . whereafter Supreme Court summarized 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 offences under Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. 13. In the recent decision in Ramgopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,2021 SCC OnLine SC 834. 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. True it is that offences which are 'noncompoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Sec. 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. It has been held as follows: "11. True it is that offences which are 'noncompoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Sec. 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Sec. 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 Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. would be tosecure 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 Sec. 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 Punjab 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." 13.1. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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. 14. Supreme Court in Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,2021 SCC OnLine SC 966. put in a further caveat by holding that power under Article 142 or under Sec. 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 ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. 15. Having regard to the above, Court is of the view that the charges against the petitioners are personal in nature and the trial has not yet commenced. De facto complainant has also come forward to amicably settle the matter. Thus considering all the aspects of matter and as desired by the parties, a quitus may be given to the dispute. 16. Accordingly and in the light of the above, C.C.No.181 of 2022 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Court at Nampally, Hyderabad is hereby quashed. 17. Criminal Petition is consequently allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.