JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5585 of 2014, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 & 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the SC / ST Act), pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. The applicants are charge-sheeted under Sections 452, 323, 504 506 with 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of the SC and ST Act. A compounding application being CRMA No. 1946 of 2014 is filed by the parties to indicate that they have settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is supported by the joint affidavits of Ashok (applicant) and the injured /victims Smt. Mamta (respondent no.2), Vishnu (respondent no.3) and Naresh Pal (respondent no.4). Respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. D.C.S.Rawat, Advocate. They say that they are no more interested in prosecuting the applicant and they be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicant. Ashok (applicant) is also present duly identified by his counsel Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate. 3. The offences complained of against the applicants are under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 with 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of the SC and ST Act. Whereas some of the offences are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the others are not. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court is- whether the private respondents/respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 should be permitted to compound the offences or not? 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. The reply to the question, posed by this Court in para no. 3 of this Judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be a futile exercise if proceedings of the criminal case against the applicant are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably. 7. Compounding Application No. 1946 of 2014 is allowed. As a consequence thereof, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5585 of 2014, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 & 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed qua applicant. 8. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.