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. 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 crimina l 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 crimina l case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the crimina l 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 crimina l proceeding or continuation of the crimina l proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
