JUDGEMENT AND ORDER [ORAL] Respondent No.2 is the complainant and he complained against the parents and sisters alleging cruelty on his wife and taking away properties given to his wife by her parents. The case is registered against the parents, two sisters and the parents of the complainant for offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420 and 498A IPC. Father of the complainant died. Police, after investigation, have filed the charge-sheet. The accused have, now, filed this petition for quashing on the ground that they have entered into a compromise with the complainant and that there is no likelihood of conviction of the accused if the trial is held. Hence, pray for quashing of the proceedings. 2. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Yogendra Yadav and Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (Criminal Appeal No.1205/2014). In the cited decision, the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 203, is referred to. In Yogendra Yadav’s case, the Supreme Court in para 4 has made the following observations: “4…………………... Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.” 3. In the cited case, the composition for offences punishable under Sections 324, 341 and 323 was permitted as they being compoundable. Composition for offences under Sections 326, 307 read with Section 34 was rejected. In that context, the Supreme Court has laid down the aforesaid proposition of law. 4. The facts of the case disclose that the dispute is between the family members. In that view of the matter, the proceedings are quashed.