JUDGMENT 1. - The present miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No. 364/2011 pending against the petitioner No. 2 in the Court of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Jodhpur instituted at the instance of the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Manju Nainiwal for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 I.P.C. 2. The First Information Report in this case was filed by the petitioner No. 1, against the petitioner No. 2. On the basis of the said F.I.R., the charge-sheet was filed and the trial is going on against the petitioner No. 2 in the Court of the learned Munisf Magistrate, Jodhpur. During pendency of the trial, compromise has been arrived at between the parties as regards the criminal case and accordingly an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the trial Court for terminating the proceedings on the basis of the compromise. The trial Court vide order dated 12.3.2012 allowed the parties to compound the offences under Sections 406 and 323 I.P.C, however, rejected the said application so far it relates to compounding of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.; hence the present miscellaneous petition has been preferred for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner No. 2. 3. Shri Manish Tak, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute arose between the husband and wife owing to matrimonial rifts and thus the petitioner No. 1 was led to file the First Information Report against the petitioner No. 2. Thereafter, wiser counsel have prevailed and the parties to the litigation have decided to settle all their disputes by way of a compromise and accordingly the compromise-petition was filed in the trial Court, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. Seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings going on against the accused-petitioner No. 2, the present miscellaneous petition has been submitted. Learned counsel appearing before this Court has submitted that once the matrimonial disputes have been settled and the parties have arrived at a compromise then continuance of the criminal proceedings is likely to unsettle the compromise arrived at between the parties. It has further been submitted that the ends of justice also require that if the matrimonial disputes are settled mutually by the spouses then the criminal litigation should not be continued. 5. It has further been submitted that the ends of justice also require that if the matrimonial disputes are settled mutually by the spouses then the criminal litigation should not be continued. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426 , has held as below: "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete set dement and compromise, with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 6. Having considered the facts and circumstance and looking to the fact that the spouses to the marriage have now decided to settle their disputes, this Court is of the opinion that the possibility of accused-petitioner No. 2 being convicted in the case is absolutely remote. Accordingly, when once the matrimonial disputes have been settled by a mutual compromise then no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 7. The miscellaneous petition is thus allowed and the proceedings of the Criminal Regular Case No. 364/2011 pending against the petitioner No. 2 in the Court of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Jodhpur for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. are hereby quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.Petition allowed. *******