“ 61 . ……… …. ………But the criminal cases having overwhelmingll and predominatingll civil favour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularll the offences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimonl relating to dowrl, etc. or the famill disputes where the wrong is basicalll private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this categorl of cases, High Court mal quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibilitl 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 bl 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 contrarl 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 the affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” ` (emphasis supplied)
