ORDER : V. Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 03.06.2008 in Crl.A.No.151 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against petitioner/accused by the judgment dated 26.06.2006 in S.C.No.126 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Kakinada, for the offence under section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 06.06.2008 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1062 of 2008. 3. Pending criminal revision case, I.A.Nos.4 and 6 of 2023 were filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3/P.Ws.4 and 3 to record the compromise and permit them to compound the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. 4. Today, the petitioner by name Lingamsetti Baburao as well his sons by name L.Durga Prasanna and L.Manikanta and respondent Nos.2 and 3 heerein by name Gandham Bhavani/P.W.4 and Laisetti Chandra Sekhar/P.W.3 are present in-person before this Court and submitted that they have settled the matter amicably on the advice of elders. The parties were identified by their respective counsel. 5. It is not in dispute that the present revision is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentences passed under Section 498-A of IPC. On the other day i.e., on 13.10.2023, when the matter was listed for recording compromise, in view of the mandatory provision under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C., postponed the same for three (3) months. 6. Now, it is needless to mention that the High Court has to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the circumstances so warrants such an invocation. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very clear that it may be used its inherent power to meet the ends of justice or found to continue the proceedings would be abuse of process of Court or otherwise to meet the ends of justice to the parties. 7. This Court is conscious of the fact that the inherent power used under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is discretionary, sparingly and cautiously to prevent misuse and while using it should also be conscious. 7. This Court is conscious of the fact that the inherent power used under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is discretionary, sparingly and cautiously to prevent misuse and while using it should also be conscious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts laid guidelines, when the inherent powers can be invoked, where there is an abuse of process of the Court or to meet the ends of justice the Court can invoke inherent jurisdiction. 8. In this connection, it is relevant to make a mention a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS, 2006 AIR SCW 3990, wherein had laid down the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which are as follows : “Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist." restored powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” 9. This Court also perused another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein at paragraph No.61 held as follows : “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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. 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. 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. Having regard to the above authoritative pronouncements, and in view of the submissions made by the sons of petitioner, who are majors, that they have no objection to record the compromise, this Court is inclined to consider the I.A.Nos.4 and 6 of 2023 and the same are ordered. 11. Consequently, the present Criminal Revision Case No.763 of 2008 is allowed. Having regard to the above authoritative pronouncements, and in view of the submissions made by the sons of petitioner, who are majors, that they have no objection to record the compromise, this Court is inclined to consider the I.A.Nos.4 and 6 of 2023 and the same are ordered. 11. Consequently, the present Criminal Revision Case No.763 of 2008 is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused, vide judgment dated 26.06.2006 in S.C.No.126 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Assistant Session Judge at Kakinada, as confirmed in the judgment, dated 03.06.2008 in Crl.A.No.151 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, are hereby set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC. The fine amount paid by the petitioner, if any, shall be refunded to him. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.