ORDER : (B.S. Bhanumathi, J.) 1. The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('the CrPC) is filed to record the compromise and seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and STs (POA) Act, Nellore. 2. The facts in the present case are briefly as follows: Thirumalasetti Adivaiah is working as tractor driver with the accused. On 08.08.2018, he accepted the request of another tractor driver to transport gravel dust. While so doing, to reach rice go-down situated opposite to Government College, at about 12 noon, the accused followed him, stopped his car, and asked LW1 to get into the car. When the accused got into the car, the accused abused him in filthy language in the name of his caste. The accused also slapped on the left cheek with his right hand and pressed with his hand on his chest on the ground that he joined as driver without intimating him. Basing on the statement of LW1, a case in Crime No.212 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(l)(r)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, was registered by Gudur II Town Police and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused. 3. Pending the criminal petition, I.A.Nos. 2 & 3 of 2024 are filed by the petitioner/accused under Sections 320(2) and 320 (6) CrPC, requesting to permit the parties to compound the offence and to record the compromise between the parties and consequently to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and STs (POA) Act, Nellore. 4. When the matter was taken up, petitioner and the second respondent/de facto complainant are present. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing R-1/State is present. H.C.(1897), Gudur II Town Police Station, Nellore District is present and identified the parties. That apart, they are identified with their original Adhar cards, photostat copies of which were already filed. 5. Both parties submitted that due to the intervention of the elders, the matter is amicably settled and that they voluntarily settled the issue. H.C.(1897), Gudur II Town Police Station, Nellore District is present and identified the parties. That apart, they are identified with their original Adhar cards, photostat copies of which were already filed. 5. Both parties submitted that due to the intervention of the elders, the matter is amicably settled and that they voluntarily settled the issue. The second respondent/de facto complainant expressed that there is no objection to quash the case against the petitioner/accused. 6. The terms of compromise are reduced into writing in the form of a joint memorandum of compromise, which is signed by the parties and their counsels. The contents of the joint memo read as follows: "1. I submit that basing on my report, a case in Crime No.212 of 2018 was registered by the 1st respondent against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323 IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act. The 1st respondent police filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide Spl.S.C.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and STs (POA) Act, 1989 Nellore. The above criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and STs (POA) Act, 1989 Nellore. 2. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner/accused and 2nd respondent compromised at the intervention of the elders and well wishers of both the parties with an understanding that all of them shall live peacefully without an disputes or enmity between them. Accordingly, all of them are living peacefully and the 2nd respondent is not interested in prosecuting the case against petitioner herein." 7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted to pass appropriate orders in view of the peculiar circumstances and facts in the present case. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramavtar V/s State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 has quashed the FIR lodged under the provisions of SC/ST Act by observing thus in Para Nos. 12 to 16:- "12. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramavtar V/s State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 has quashed the FIR lodged under the provisions of SC/ST Act by observing thus in Para Nos. 12 to 16:- "12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and re-iterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused. 13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers 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. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub-judice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is 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, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extra-ordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s). 14. With respect to the second question before us, it must be noted that even though the powers of this Court under Article 142 are wide and far-reaching, the same cannot be exercised in a vacuum. True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the Court's power to do "complete justice". However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn Vs. However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn Vs. Union of India has eloquently clarified this point as follows: "48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice "between the parties in any cause or matter pending before it". The very nature of the power must lead the Court to set limits, for itself within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, except perhaps to balance the equities between the conflicting claims of the litigating parties by "ironing out the creases" in a cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute- settling. It is well recognised and established that this Court has always been a law- maker and its role travels beyond merely dispute-settling. It is a "problem- solver in the nebulous areas" (see K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] but the substantive statutory provisions dealing with the subject-matter of a given case cannot be altogether ignored by this Court, while making an order under Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory provisions but at the same time these powers are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided for in a statute dealing expressly with the subject." 15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The SC/ ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 16. On the other hand, 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 to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be 5 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 Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482Cr.P.C." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 642 had an occasion to deal with various decisions in Monica Kumar (Dr.) Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781 , Mrs. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 494 : 1990 Supp SCC 686, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, (1983) 1 SCC 1 , State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh, (2010) 11 SCC 226 , Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 , Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Smbhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 , Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 , State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471 , Kapil Agarwal & Others Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh, (2010) 11 SCC 226 , Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 , Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Smbhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 , Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 , State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471 , Kapil Agarwal & Others Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others, (2021) 5 SCC 524 , Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (9) Scale 257 , Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 9 SCC 466, State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SC 29. Finally, it was held in paragraph No.46 of the said decision as follows: "46. In Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujrat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , a three-Judge Bench of this Court quoted Narinder Singh (supra), Vikram Anantrai Doshi (supra), CBI V. Maninder Singh (supra), R.Vasanthi Stanley (supra) and held:- "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. 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. 16.2. 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. 16.3. 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. 16.4. 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. 16.5. 16.4. 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. 16.5. 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. 16.6. 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. 16.7. 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. 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. 16.9. 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 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. 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." 9. 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." 9. Perused the record. 10. When this Court questioned the de facto complainant with regard to compromise, he reiterated the averments in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos. 2 of 2024 and 3 of 2024 and categorically stated that he voluntarily and willingly entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused without any force or pressure from any quarter and he has no objection to quash the proceedings against him. This Court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the apex Court and the chances of conviction are exiguous and remote as the parties have entered into a compromise, it is a matter fit to quash the proceedings by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Hence, there is no need to pass any order under Section 320 CrPC and accordingly, I.As.No.2 and 3 of 2024 are closed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and STs (POA) Act, Nellore, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.