JUDGMENT 1. - These criminal misc. petitions are preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No. 319 of 2006 State of Rajasthan v. Narayan Lal & Ors. pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Sojat, District Pali (Arising out of FIR No. 47/2006 - P.S. Shivpura, District Pali). 2. In these cases, on basis of complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 on 2.5.2006, the Judicial Magistrate Sojat has directed the police to investigate the matter while exercising powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Police Station Shivpura filed an FIR No. 47/2006 and after investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners. 3. The learned trial court thereafter framed charges against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 120B/167 I.P.C. 4. During the pendency of the trial, an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. was preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 2 along with compromise deed executed between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 with a prayer for terminating the proceedings on the basis of compromise. The trial court vide order dated 22.11.2013 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C., however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Sections 167 and 120B I.P.C. 5. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition with prayer for quashing the proceedings in the aforementioned case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the parties have already arrived at a compromise and as the petitioners are already acquitted for the charges under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C., there is no possibility of the accused petitioners being convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 167 and 120B I.P.C. and, therefore, the trial pending against the petitioners for the said offences be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that since the matter has already been compromised between the parties, and if the trial against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence punishable under Sections 167 and 120B I.P.C., pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Sojat City, Pali Criminal Case No. 319/2006 is quashed, he has no objection. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. 8. 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 FIR 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 victims 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 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 proceeding." 9. Looking to the fact that the respondent No. 2 and petitioners have already entered into a compromise, there is no possibility of accused petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them. 10. 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 power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, these criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 319/2006, State of Rajasthan v. Narayan Lal & Ors. pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Sojat District Pali (Arising out of FIR No. 47/2006) P.S. Shivpura, District Pali are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******