JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 506, 354 IPC, vide order dated 16.09.2009. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was filed by the accused-applicants. 2. Compounding Application (CRMA No. 1403 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The said application is supported by the affidavit of victim-Asha Devi, who is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Mr. V.D. Bisen. Two of the applicants, i.e. Panchdev and Ramrati are also present in person before this Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia. The victim submitted before this Court that she does not wish to prosecute the applicants, in as much as, a compromise has taken place between them. The victim prayed that she may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants, the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. be allowed and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed. 3. All the offences, but for one, complained of against the applicants are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. The question is – whether the victim should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants or not? 4. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and has held as below:- “If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr. P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” 5. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of Cr. P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. Learned counsel for the parties drew attention of this Court towards the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . The said ruling is applicable to the facts of this case. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the parties drew attention of this Court towards the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . The said ruling is applicable to the facts of this case. 7. The permission can be granted to the victim to compound such offences in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, wherein it was observed as below:- “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 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 statues 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. 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 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 proceedings 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. Since the victim has buried all her differences against the applicants, therefore, she should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants in the interest of justice. 9. Compounding Application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is allowed on the basis of compromise between the parties. The summoning order dated 16.09.2009 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1227 of 2009 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed.