JUDGMENT 1. - This joint Criminal Misc. Petition has preferred by the I complainant i.e. petitioner No. 1 and accused persons i.e. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 J with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner Nos. I 2 to 4 before the Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. I 444 of 2011, State of Rajasthan v. Surjeet Sain & Ors. for the offence punishable I under Section 498-A I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of I the petitioner No. 1, before the Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan Jodhpur against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, the trial was pending against them for the I offence under Section 498-A and 406 I.P.C. 3. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner I No. 2 have decided to live separately by mutual consent and in this regard an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is already filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the same is pending adjudication before the Family Court, Jodhpur and before filing the same the petitioner No. 1 has also received the permanent alimony from the petitioner No. 2 and no amount is I pending as regard to the maintenance. 4. In such circumstances, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 while stating that the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 may be terminated. The Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan Jodhpur vide order dated 12.12.2012 allowed the parties to compound the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. 5. The present joint Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by the I complainant i.e. the petitioner No. 1 and the accused persons i.e. the petitioner I Nos. 2 to 4 for quashing the said proceedings against them. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant-petitioner No. 1 and the accused persons i.e. the petitioner Nos. 2 I to 4 have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, they have I already been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner Nos. 2 I to 4 have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, they have I already been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the parties have decided to live separately by mutual consent I and in this regard an application under Section 13-B of the Hindi Marriage Act, 1955 is already filed by the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 and the same is pending adjudication before the Family Court, Jodhpur. It is also argued ! that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties 7. In petitioner No. 1-Smt. Sushma (Beena) and the petitioner No. 2-Surjeet Sain Gupta present in-person today and confirmed the same. 8. 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 billow:- "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 F.I.R. 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. 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 of different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transaction 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 views, 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 of 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 proceedings." 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 have decided to live separately and in pursuance of that appropriate proceedings are also pending before the Family Court, Jodhpur, there is no possibility of accused-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 being convicted in the case pending against them. Having considered the facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 have decided to live separately and in pursuance of that appropriate proceedings are also pending before the Family Court, Jodhpur, there is no possibility of accused-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 being convicted in the case pending against them. When once the matrimonial disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, when no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.Keeping in view the observation made 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 powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.Accordingly, this joint Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 before the Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 444 of 2011, State Rajasthan v. Surjeet Sain & Ors. for the offence under Section 498-B I.P.C. are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******