The power inherent under Section 482 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which is the 37th Chapter of the code) is extensive and does not have any statutory limitations. The statement emphasises that the High Court has the authority to protect against any misuse of the court system or to ensure that justice is served. As a result, the High Court must consider the seriousness and nature of the offences.

On October 4, 2017, the Honourable Supreme Court issued guidelines in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017). These guidelines outline the procedures that courts should follow when exercising their inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court, after carefully observing various precedents on this subject, summarised the propositions.

Section 482 of the law preserves the inherent powers of the High Court. These powers are meant to prevent any abuse of the court's process or to ensure that justice is served. The provision does not grant any additional powers. It only recognises and preserves powers that are inherent in the High Court.

The act of seeking the intervention of the High Court to dismiss a First Information Report or a criminal case based on a settlement between the offender and the victim is different from seeking the court's intervention to resolve or settle an offence. The power of the court to compound an offence is regulated by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 can be invoked, even if the offence is non-compoundable.

When deciding whether to quash a criminal proceeding or complaint under Section 482, the High Court must consider whether the exercise of its inherent power is justified by the ends of justice.

The High Court possesses extensive power, which must be utilised for two main purposes: to ensure justice is served and to prevent any misuse of the court's procedures.

The decision on whether to quash a complaint or First Information Report (FIR) based on the settlement between the offender and victim depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive set of principles that can be universally applied in all situations.

When exercising the power under Section 482 and considering a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must carefully consider the nature and seriousness of the offence. Crimes of a heinous and serious nature, such as murder, rape, and dacoity, should not be dismissed or quashed simply because the victim or their family has reached a settlement.

These offences involve a level of mental depravity that warrants proper legal action. These offences, to be honest, are not of a private nature but rather have a significant impact on society. The decision to proceed with the trial in such cases is based on the primary factor of public interest in holding individuals accountable for serious offences.

In contrast to serious offences, there are criminal cases that primarily involve a civil dispute. They are in a unique position when it comes to the exercise of the inherent power to quash.

In certain situations, criminal cases related to offences that stem from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership, or similar transactions with a primarily civil nature may be eligible for dismissal if the parties involved have reached a settlement in the dispute.

In such a situation, the High Court has the authority to nullify the criminal proceeding if it determines that, due to a compromise between the parties involved, the likelihood of a conviction is highly unlikely. Continuing with the criminal proceeding would then result in unfair treatment and harm.

There is, however, an exception to the principle stated in propositions (viii) and (ix) mentioned earlier. Economic offences that impact the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications that extend beyond a simple dispute between private individuals. The High Court would have valid grounds to refuse to overturn a decision when the offender is engaged in an activity similar to financial or economic fraud or misconduct. The impact of the complained act on the financial or economic system will be taken into consideration.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court has established the aforementioned broad principles in order to prevent the misuse of court processes and ensure justice is served. Therefore, individuals should only approach the High Courts if they have acted honestly and with integrity. This will allow the High Courts to prevent the misuse of court processes and avoid serious miscarriages of justice.