JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 34/2014 of Police Station, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar and proceedings in furtherance thereto for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. in view of compromise inter se the parties. 2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 the Police Station, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar has registered the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B l.P.C. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that as the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise then no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings in F.I.R. against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470 and 120-B l.P.C because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No. 2 does not want to press the charges levelled in the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioners in relation to offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 211,120-B and 323 l.P.C. and in support of that he executed affidavit dated 26.4.2014, the same is placed on record. 4. 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. 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 of 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. 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 in justice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement 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 proceedings." 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances and looking to the case that the petitioners and respondent No. 4 have entered into compromise, there is no possibility of accused-petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them. When once the disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 6. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. against the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, this criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No. 34/2014 of Police Station, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B l.P.C are hereby quashedStay petition 'also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******