Inherent quashing power permits termination of non-compoundable criminal proceedings where settlement exists and entrustment for breach of trust is absent.

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court's inherent power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, and that power is not barred merely because the offence is non-compoundable. On the facts of a hypothecation transaction, criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC was not made out because entrustment was absent; at most, the allegations suggested a compoundable offence. In view of the settlement between the parties and the absence of the ingredients of Section 406, continuation of the prosecution was treated as futile and the proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the alleged offence being non-compoundable, when the parties had settled the dispute. (ii) Whether, on the facts of a hypothecation transaction, an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was made out or whether the matter, at best, disclosed a compoundable offence.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the alleged offence being non-compoundable, when the parties had settled the dispute.

Analysis: The settled position recognised that Section 482 preserves the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. Section 320 limits compounding by the parties and the court, but it does not curtail the High Court's power to quash proceedings in an appropriate case. The mere fact that the offence is non-compoundable does not create an absolute bar to quashing; the decisive consideration is whether continuation of the prosecution would serve any useful purpose in the light of the settlement and the nature of the dispute.

Conclusion: The High Court had power to quash the proceedings notwithstanding non-compoundability, and the power could be exercised on the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts of a hypothecation transaction, an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was made out or whether the matter, at best, disclosed a compoundable offence.

Analysis: Criminal breach of trust under Section 405 requires entrustment, and without entrustment Section 406 cannot be attracted. In a hypothecation arrangement, the Court accepted that entrustment was absent. On that view, the allegations did not support Section 406; at most, they could fall within cheating, which would be punishable under Section 420 and be compoundable. Coupled with the settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings would be futile.

Conclusion: Section 406 was not made out on the facts, and the dispute was treated as one amenable to quashing in view of the compromise.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were terminated because the settlement between the parties, together with the absence of entrustment necessary for Section 406, justified quashing under the Court's inherent powers.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court may quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even in relation to a non-compoundable offence where continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of process or would not secure the ends of justice, and criminal breach of trust cannot be sustained without entrustment.

---