Compromise can justify quashing criminal proceedings when full settlement removes any surviving grievance and prosecution becomes oppressive.

Compromise and full settlement of the civil liability can justify quashing criminal proceedings under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction where continuation would be oppressive and amount to abuse of process. The text notes that the allegations included cheating and conspiracy; although conspiracy is not compoundable and compounding under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is distinct from inherent powers under Section 482, the complete resolution of the monetary dispute left no subsisting grievance. On those facts, the High Court was entitled to intervene to secure the ends of justice, and its order quashing the proceedings was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction on the basis of the compromise and settlement of the civil liability between the parties.

Analysis: The settlement had resolved the monetary dispute with the bank and no subsisting grievance remained. The offences alleged were under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. While Section 420 is compoundable, Section 120-B is not, but the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is distinct from compounding under Section 320. In the facts of the case, the continuation of the prosecution after complete settlement would amount to an oppressive and unnecessary criminal proceeding, and the High Court was entitled to intervene to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The High Court's order quashing the proceedings was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---