JUDGMENT 1. - The instant mine, petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Regular Case No. 11/2006 pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Udaipur against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. on the basis of the compromise. 2. The First Information Report in this case was filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings of the F.I.R., compromise has been arrived at between the parties as regards the criminal case and accordingly a compromise has been executed between the parties. 3. Shri Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Lokesh Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2 have submitted that in this case, the parties to the litigation have arrived at the compromise. Seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings going on against the accused-petitioners, the present miscellaneous petition has been submitted. Learned counsel appearing before this Court have submitted that once the disputes have been settled and the parties to the, litigation have arrived at a compromise, then, continuance of the criminal proceedings is likely to unsettle the compromise arrived at between the parties. They submit that a combined application for termination of the proceedings through a mutual compromise was filed in the Court below. The Trial Court vide order dated 21.11.2013 rejected the said application on the ground that the aforesaid offences are non-compoundable. 4. In this view of the matter and looking to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh to. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 426, it is apparent that further continuance of the proceedings going on against the petitioners in the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be expedient in the interest of justice. If the proceedings are allowed to continue, it may result into the compromise being unsettled. 5. Upon a perusal of the F.I.R. filed by the complainant, it is apparent that the dispute between the parties is purely of private nature in relation to the alleged act of cheating and preparing false and frivolous documents in connection with the property of the complainant and the dispute has been settled between the parties by way of mutual compromise. 6. 6. Thus, having considered the facts and circumstance of the case and keeping in view that fact that the parties to the litigation have decided to settle all their disputes by way of a mutual compromise, then, this Court is of the opinion that the possibility of accused-petitioners being convicted in the case is absolutely remote. Accordingly, when once the disputes between the parties have been settled by a mutual compromise then no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings of the Criminal Regular Case No. 11/2006 pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Udaipur against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. are hereby quashed on the basis of the compromise. Stay petition is also disposed of.Petition allowed. *******