under special statutes like P revention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by pu b lic servants while working in t hat capacity etc; cannot pro v ide for any basis for quas h ing criminal proceedings invol v ing such offences. But the crim i nal cases having overwhelm i ngly and pre-dominatingly c ivil flavour stand on different f o oting for the purposes of quash i ng, particularly the offences arising from commercial, finan c ial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of mat r imony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where th e wrong is basically private or personal in nature and th e parties have resolved their e n tire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compro m ise between the offender and v i ctim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and cont i nuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppres s ion and prejudice and extr e me injustice would be caused t o him by not quashing the crim i nal case despite full and compl e te settlement and compromise w ith the victim. In other wor ds , the High Court must cons i der whether it would be unfair o r contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the crimin a l proceeding or continuation o f the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of proces s of law despite settlement and c ompromise between the victim a nd wrongdoer and whether t o secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
