JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the order dated 3.3.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First class), Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 170/2008 (State v. Surendra) , whereby the Judicial Magistrate has rejected the compromise application and denied to quash and set aside the Criminal Proceedings, which is initiated against the petitioner on the basis of F.I.R. No. 7/2008 dated 5.1.2008 of Police Station, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. 2. Brief Facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, the Police Station, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, has registered an F.I.R. No. 7/2008 against the petitioner for offence under Sections 420, 467, 4 68 and 471 I.P.C. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 408 I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First class), Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. 3. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh vide order dated 3.3.2014 rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 480 I.P.C. and the same are not compoundable. 4. The present Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 408 I.P.C. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 480 I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No. 2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 408 I.P.C. 7. 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 of 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. 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 I committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot I provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such I 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. 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 I between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and i compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider I whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to I continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal I 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." 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have entered into compromise and there is no possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him. When once the disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 9. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is fit case for exercising powers under Section Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the judicial Magistrate (First Class), Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 170/2008 (State v. Surendra) are hereby quashed.Stay petition also stands disposed of. *******