JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the FIR No.10/2013 of Police Station, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, and further proceedings in pursuant thereof, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 IPC at the instance of the respondent No.2. 2. Today, the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 are present in person in the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that both the parties have entered into a compromise and decided to live separately and the respondent No.2 is also not willing to prosecute the petitioners for the offence alleged in the impugned FIR, therefore, the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed. 4. The respondent No.2 also states that on account of compromise arrived at between her and the petitioner No.1, she is not willing to prosecute the petitioners for the offences alleged in the impugned FIR and she has no objection if the impugned FIR and the proceedings related to it are quashed. A affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 before the Notary Public, Jodhpur is also submitted for the perusal of the Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 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. 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." 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the compromise entered between the parties and in view of the law laid down 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 impugned FIR. 8. Hence this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR No.10/2013 of Police Station, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand is quashed.Stay petition is disposed of.Petition allowed. *******