JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate, for the revisionists, Mr. R.K. Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Deep Joshi, Advocate, for the complainants. 2. The present revision has been filed by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Appeal No.89 of 2009 by which the revisionists have been convicted under Section 325 of I.P.C. and sentenced for two years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and further convicted under Section 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced for six months Simple Imprisonment, respectively. 3. The conviction of the revisionists was upheld by the appellate court. Hence, the present revision before this Court. 4. During the pendency of the revision, revisionist-Prem Singh, passed away on 14.11.2013. Regarding the other revisionists, joint applications have been moved by both the parties for compounding the matter. 5. There are two injured persons, namely, Kanhie Singh and Roopwati, who have filed their affidavits along with compounding applications. There is also an affidavit of Pancham Singh, who is revisionist no. 4 in the present case. This has also been affirmed by their counsels Mr. Deep Joshi and Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, who represents respondents and revisionists respectively before this Court. Both the injured persons (referred above) were present before this Court on 15.05.2015. It has been alleged in the compounding application that both the parties want to resolve their dispute amicably and want to bring an end to it. 6. In view thereof, there is no useful purpose for continuing the criminal proceedings between the parties, particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab & another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 wherein correctness of the earlier decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant [ 2008 (9) SCC 677 ] and B.S. Joshi [ 2003 (4) SCC 675 ] has been reiterated. The operative portion of the judgment (Gian Singh) is reproduced as below:- “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 a 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 a 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 between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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. Considering the overall circumstances of the case and in view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this also being the considered view of this Court that the case before it is the one which is liable to be dealt as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above mentioned judgment, where power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be invoked. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed with the above direction. 8. The impugned judgment and order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Appeal No. 89 of 2009 (Prem Singh & others Vs. State of Uttarakhand) is hereby quashed.