Judgment : 1. This petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 431 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri. 2. The petitioners are the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 506(ii) and 420 I.P.C. After filing of the final report, the learned Magistrate has taken cognisance of the case and it is pending. At this stage, the present petition to quash the proceedings has been filed before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from filing of the complaint with the respondent police, a suit in O.S. No.6, of 2005 was also filed before the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri. The dispute between the complainant and the accused, is that after entering into an agreement, committed cheating after receiving huge money. The amount involved in the dispute has been settled and returned back to the complainant resulting in the withdrawal of the suit before the Civil Court. It has also been agreed to withdraw the criminal case also and a memorandum of compromise was entered on 8.12.2005. 4. The respondent/complainant also entered appearance. A joint memo also has been filed before this Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Both the parties appeared before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings. 5. I have heard the counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. 6. In B. S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another AIR 2003 SC 1386 : (2003) SCC (Cri) 848, in paragraphs 10 and 11, it has been held as follows:- “10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may by many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offencese The answer clearly has to be in “negative”. It would, however be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides. 11. InMadhavaro Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.” 7. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.” 7. Accepting the statement made by the counsel for the complainant that he is no more interested to prosecute the accused, as the Supreme Court has held that in a given situation i. e., even if the offence is non-compoundable one, as the parties have compromised their dispute, there is no meaning in continuing the proceedings before the trial Court. I find this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Hence this petition is orders as prayed for. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.