JUDGMENT 1. - This joint Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the complainant-petitioner No. 3 with the prayer for quashing the proceeding pending against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4 (SD), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Regular Case No. 102/2010 (State v. Bablu @ Omprakash & Ors.) arising out of F.I.R. No. 221/2007 dated 2.12.2007 of Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jodhpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of petitioner No. 3, the Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jodhpur has registered an F.I.R. No. 221/2007 against the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and other accused person. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and other accused persons for offence under Sections 406, 323 and 498-A I.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4 (SD), Jodhpur Metropolitan wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for the aforesaid offence. 3. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the complainant-petitioner No. 3 as well as the accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 may be terminated. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.5.2010 allowed the parties to compound the offence under Sections 406 and 323 I.P.C. however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. 4. The present Criminal Misc. Petition has preferred by the accuse-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the complainant-petitioner No. 3 for quashing the said proceedings against the accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant-petitioner No.' 3 and the accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have already been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 323 I.P.C, there is no possibility of conviction of the accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioner No. 1 and the complainant-petitioner No. 3 have decided to live together by mutual consent. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioner No. 1 and the complainant-petitioner No. 3 have decided to live together by mutual consent. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. The petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 3 present in persons have admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and decided to live together and the complainant-petitioner No. 3 does not want to press the charges levelled against the accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in relation to offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. 7. 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 o,r victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim o,r 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 predominating 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 injustice 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." 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 have decided to live together, there is no possibility of accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 being convicted in the case pending against them. When once the matrimonial disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 9. 1 and 2 being convicted in the case pending against them. When once the matrimonial disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 9. 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 criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the accused petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 before the learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4 (SD), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Regular Case No. 102/2010 (State v. Bablu @ Omprakash & Ors.) are hereby quashed.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******