JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. All these matters relate to the same proceedings and they are taken together. 2. The first petition No. 2309 of 2014 has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 4831 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 499/2010, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 of IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow including the charge sheet No. 32 of 2012 dated 30.06.2012. 3. The second petition No. 2311 of 2014 has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 15 of 2013 as well as summoning order dated 08.01.2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 87of 2012, under Sections 420,467,468 of IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow including the charge sheet No. 53 of 2012 dated 19.11.2012. 4. The third petition No. 2312 of 2014 has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 4830 of 2012 as well as summoning order dated 30.07.2012 arising out of Case Crime No.628 of 2010, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 of IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow including the charge sheet No. 33 of 2012 dated 30.06.2012. 5. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that all the three matters have been amicably settled between the parties and the parties have also submitted the compromise, which has been verified by the Senior Registrar. It has also been submitted that it was a personal dispute, therefore, it is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303 . 6. The parties have submitted their compromise before this court, which was sent to the Senior Registrar for verification. I have perused the report of Senior Registrar, who has stated that the concerned parties have appeared before him and they have verified the contents of compromise. 7. In case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "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." 8. The present matters relate to sell and purchase of the immovable property and there was some dispute regarding payments. Now the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and I agree with the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties that the matters are covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra). 9. Accordingly, all the petitions are disposed of in the following way. 1. The entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 4831 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 499/2010, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 of IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow including the charge sheet No. 32 of 2012 dated 30.06.2012 are hereby quashed. 2. The entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 15 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 87 of 2012, under Sections 420,467,468 of IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow including the charge sheet No. 53 of 2012 dated 19.11.2012 are hereby quashed. 3. The entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 4830 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No.628 of 2010, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 of IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow including the charge sheet No. 33 of 2012 dated 30.06.2012 are hereby quashed.