Judgment Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the first information report of Pithoria P.S. Case No. 12 of 2012 (G.R. No. 615/2012), registered under Sections 341, 323, 384, 504, 506, 467, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the parties got their dispute settled amicably and have arrived at to a compromise and a joint compromise petition has been filed by way of interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1460 of 2013. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant had purchase a piece of land in the year 2008 from a rightful owner of the land, whereas these petitioners had purchase the same piece of land not from the rightful owner of the land rather from a 3rd person in the year 2005 and when the informant had collected building materials over that piece of land for making construction, those building materials were removed by Abbas Khan, Md. Naushad, Lal Khan and Tunu Khan, who are the vendors and they also put forth the demand of Rangdari. On such allegation Pithoria P.S. Case No. 12 of 2012 has been registered under Sections 341, 323, 384, 504, 506, 467, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on account of a dispute, which arose in between these petitioners and the informant, the informant had brought a Civil Suit, which ended in a compromise and, therefore, the parties have entered into a compromise in criminal case also and, therefore, it can be said that basically the criminal prosecution is an outcome of the civil dispute, which has amicably been settled and in such situation, offence under Section 384 IPC can be allowed to be compounded in view of the ratio laid down in a case of “Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another [2011 (4) JLJR (SC) 421]”. 5. Further, it was submitted that so far as offence under Section 467 IPC is concerned, it never gets attracted even if, all the allegations, made in the F.I.R., are taken to be true and, in such situation, the compromise petition filed by the parties be accepted and the order taking cognizance be quashed. 6. 5. Further, it was submitted that so far as offence under Section 467 IPC is concerned, it never gets attracted even if, all the allegations, made in the F.I.R., are taken to be true and, in such situation, the compromise petition filed by the parties be accepted and the order taking cognizance be quashed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 also admits that the parties got their civil dispute settled and have also entered into a compromise in the present criminal case. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the case has been registered under Sections 341, 323, 384, 504, 506, 467, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of those offences, offences under Sections 384 and 467 IPC never appear to be compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it does appear that the allegation got cropped up out of civil dispute, which has amicably been settled and, thereby, the parties have arrived at to a compromise. Under this situation, the compromise is accepted in view of the ratio laid down in the case referred to above, wherein it has been observed as follows: “Coming to the case at hand we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out some “misunderstanding and misconception” will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below.” 8. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below.” 8. Further it does appear that no offence is made out under Section 467 IPC even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are accepted to be true. 9. As I have noticed above that the case being arisen out of civil dispute which got settled between the parties, there is no difficulty in accepting the compromise arrived at in between the parties. Accordingly, the first information report of Pithoria P.S. Case No. 12 of 2012 (G.R. No. 615/2012), is hereby quashed. 10. In the result this application stands allowed. Application allowed.