JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the judgment and order dated 27.08.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 1238 of 2008, captioned as State of Uttarakhand vs. Nand Kishor, whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, a Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2013 against which is pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. The applicant has been convicted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and has been sentenced accordingly vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2013. A Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the said judgment and order before the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. CRMA No. 1881 of 2014 has been filed by the cheated person/victim (respondent no.2) Ram Kishor for permitting him to compound the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused (applicant herein) Nand Kishor. The person cheated (Ram Kishor), is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. D.K.Tyagi, Advocate. He says that he is not interested in prosecuting the applicant, in as much as, the disputes between the parties have been settled with the intervention a few elderly persons of the society. He also says that he wants to compound the offences alleged against the accused. He also stated that money which was taken by the accused, in his name from the Bank, has been returned to the said Bank. The applicant Nand Kishor, is also present, duly identified by his counsel Mr. M.K.Ray, Advocate. 4. Learned counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below: “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 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 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.” 5. A reference may also be had to the decision of Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 *, in this regard. 6. Learned counsel representing the State opposed the compounding application on the ground that compounding after the conviction under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC is not permissible. The said submission of learned counsel for the State is contrary to Sub-Section (5) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra). It will be useful to reproduce herein Sub-Section (5) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. as follows: “ 320 (5)- When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.” 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650. 8. The person cheated is seeking leave of this Court to permit him to compound the offences, for which the accused-appellant has been convicted. Sub-Section (5) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is meant for those offences, which are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. It is true that Sections 468 and 471 of IPC are non-compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., but the Hon’ble Apex Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the cases of Nikhil Merchant, Gian Singh and Narendra Singh (supra). The contention of learned counsel for the State, therefore, falls to the ground in view of the above proposition of law. The contention of learned counsel for the State, therefore, falls to the ground in view of the above proposition of law. Offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is compoundable offence with the permission of the Court under the Scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 9. CRMA No. 1881 of 2014 is thus allowed. The person cheated/victim is permitted to compound the offence complained of against the convict-applicant. As a consequence thereof, the judgment and order dated 27.08.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 1238 of 2008, captioned as State of Uttarakhand vs. Nand Kishor, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC is hereby set aside in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, i.e. person cheated/victim and the accused-applicant. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is also set aside. Accused-applicant stands acquitted of the charges of Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Accused-applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. He need not surrender. 10. The Criminal Misc. Application (C-482 Petition) No. 1531 of 2014 is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. 11. Criminal appeal pending against the conviction of the applicant has since rendered infructuous, therefore, the same be disposed of as infructuous by the lower appellate court in view of this judgment. 12. Let an information to this effect be given to the learned lower appellate court for compliance.