Acted-upon compromise can support quashing, and court-recorded admissions may count as evidence for summoning decisions.

A genuine settlement that has been acted upon may justify quashing criminal proceedings under the inherent powers of the HC, even where the offence is non-compoundable, because continued prosecution would be inconsistent with the compromise already reached. For proceedings under Section 319 CrPC, the term "evidence" was treated broadly to include statements and admissions recorded in court about receipt of the settlement amount and execution of the compromise, even if the compromise deed was not formally exhibited. On that basis, the summoning orders were held unsustainable and the revisional order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partial or piecemeal compromise between the parties could be relied upon for exercising inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings against the applicants. (ii) Whether, for the purpose of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the compromise and the evidence of receipt of settlement amount could be treated as material despite the compromise deed not being formally exhibited.

Issue (i): Whether a partial or piecemeal compromise between the parties could be relied upon for exercising inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings against the applicants.

Analysis: The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is intended to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Where the dispute has been settled between the concerned parties and the settlement has been acted upon, non-compoundability under Section 320 does not by itself bar interference under Section 482. The compromise was treated as valid and effective between the applicants and the informant, and the continuation of proceedings against them was viewed as inconsistent with the settlement already arrived at.

Conclusion: The compromise could be relied upon, and continuation of the proceedings against the applicants was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether, for the purpose of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the compromise and the evidence of receipt of settlement amount could be treated as material despite the compromise deed not being formally exhibited.

Analysis: The expression "evidence" in Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was understood broadly and not in a narrow sense confined only to formally exhibited documents. Statements made in court, including the informant's admissions in examination-in-chief and cross-examination regarding receipt of the settlement amount and execution of compromise, were treated as relevant material. On that basis, the summoning of the applicants under Section 319 was found to be contrary to the settled legal position, particularly when the parties had already compromised.

Conclusion: The material could be considered, and the orders summoning the applicants under Section 319 were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned summoning and revisional orders were set aside, and the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was allowed in favour of the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: For invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a genuine acted-upon settlement may justify quashing even in non-compoundable matters, and for Section 319 proceedings the term "evidence" includes relevant material brought before the court, not merely formally exhibited documents.

---