Facts: The applicant, an Advocate by profession, was representing the son of the original complainant in a criminal case involving Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the applicant acted as an intermediary to demand a bribe of Rs. 1.25 lakhs on behalf of police officers Deepak Tayde and Gaikwad to provide better facilities for the complainant's son while in police custody. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) conducted a verification panchanama and recorded a conversation where the applicant allegedly attempted to convince the complainant to pay the gratification amount. Subsequent voice sample analysis confirmed that the voice in the recording matched that of the applicant. During the pendency of the application, the original complainant filed an affidavit stating that the complaint was lodged due to a misunderstanding and expressed no objection to quashing the FIR based on a settlement.Procedural Posture: The applicant moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) seeking to quash FIR No. 29/2018 and the subsequent chargesheet pending before the Special Court, Akola.Issue: Whether criminal proceedings involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the complainant and the accused, and whether the applicant, not being a public servant, can be prosecuted for abetment under the Act.Holding: No, the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise for offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, while Sections 7 and 15 of the Act are not attracted as the applicant is not a public servant, a prima facie case for abetment under Section 12 is established.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that corruption is a "social malaise" that disturbs the preambular promise of social justice. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, the Court held that the inherent power to quash non-compoundable offences based on a settlement is restricted to cases of a predominantly civil or matrimonial nature and does not extend to special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act. Regarding the legal merits, the Court noted that while the applicant is not a "public servant" under Section 2(c), the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC applies to the Act. The recorded communication and voice match provided sufficient prima facie evidence that the applicant intentionally aided or instigated the demand for gratification, sustaining the charge under Section 12.