JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Mr. Pankaj Negi, Advocate, present for the applicant. 2. Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned Brief Holder, with Mr. V.S. Mehra, learned Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent No. 1. 3. Mr. V.S. Rawat, Advocate, present for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 4. An F.I.R. was lodged against the present applicant by respondent No. 3, who is the father of one Ms. Rekha/respondent No. 2 under Sections 363/366 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, at Police Station Karanprayag, District Chamoli. The allegation against the present applicant is that he had abducted the daughter of respondent No. 3 but subsequently the circumstances are revealed before this Court that the respondent No. 2 had actually eloped with the present applicant as present applicant and Ms. Rekha (respondent No. 2) were studying together in the Government Inter College, Marora, Tehsil Gairsain, District Chamoli, and were in love. After investigation police filed the charge sheet against the present applicant and consequently the learned court below took cognizance and thereafter, summon has been issued to the present applicant. Hence, this application under Section 482 CrPC before this Court. 5. On the last occasion, respondent No. 3 was present before this Court and has given a statement that he does not want to press the charges against the present applicant. Meanwhile, applicant and respondent No. 2 have also married. This fact is also admitted by the counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. They have filed their counter affidavits in the matter. On behalf of respondent No. 3, the relevant paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit read as under:- “3. That it is pertinent to mention that the deponent and applicant are known to each other. The deponent is the father-in-law of applicant and respondent No. 2 is the daughter of the deponent. As per the wish and desire of respondent No. 2 (daughter of deponent) and applicant to marry each other, they got married as per Hindu rituals on 10/03/2015 at the house of deponent in the presence of all family members and others. The deponent in the interest of his daughter (respondent No. 2) and applicant and their wellbeing does not want to continue with the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case pending before the Learned Special Sessions Judge, District Chamoli. The deponent in the interest of his daughter (respondent No. 2) and applicant and their wellbeing does not want to continue with the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case pending before the Learned Special Sessions Judge, District Chamoli. Deponent humbly prays before the Hon’ble Court that the aforesaid criminal misc. application of the applicant and deponent may be allowed in the interest of both parties. 4. That the deponent got married his daughter according to her wish and desire with applicant. In view of this fact the continuation of the above stated criminal proceeding will be against the interest and good being of respondent No. 2 and applicant. The intention of both the applicant and deponent was to marry from the very beginning and on date they are married to each other. In view of this fact the above stated criminal proceedings may be quashed by this Hon’ble Court so that relationship of both the parties could be saved to meet the ends of justice.” 6. Respondent No. 2 in counter affidavit herself stated in the paragraph No. 3, which reads as under:- “3. That it is pertinent to mention that the deponent and applicant are known to each other from school and wanted to marry. With the consent of both the families the applicant and deponent got married on 10.03.2015. On date the deponent is the wife of applicant and respondent No. 3 is the father of the deponent. She is living peaceful and happy life in the house of her in-laws and as such deponent does not want to continue with the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case pending before the Learned Special Sessions Judge, Chamoli. She humbly prays before the Hon’ble Court that the aforesaid criminal misc. application of the applicant and deponent may be allowed in the interest of deponent and applicant.” 7. It is again an admitted fact that the applicant and respondent No. 2 had eloped, when she was only a few months short of attaining her majority. After attaining the age of majority, the present applicant and the respondent No. 2 have married. 8. In view of these circumstances and the unfolding of events, which have been narrated in the preceding paragraphs, no fruitful purpose will be solved in keeping this matter pending before this Court. After attaining the age of majority, the present applicant and the respondent No. 2 have married. 8. In view of these circumstances and the unfolding of events, which have been narrated in the preceding paragraphs, no fruitful purpose will be solved in keeping this matter pending before this Court. In fact, the mere pendency of the criminal case is nothing but an unnecessary harassment to the accused and would be an abuse of the process of law. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in such matters had laid down certain guidelines where inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. These powers are laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, the relevant paragraph 61 of the said judgment reads as under:- “61. 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 complainant 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 complainant of FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences under special statutes like servants while working in that capacity, etc. cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences under special statutes like servants while working in that capacity, etc. cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases have overwhelmingly and predominantly 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. In this category of case, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 10. There is now a satisfaction of this Court that the present proceedings are absolutely futile, as both the parties have entered into a compromise, and particularly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, there is no fruitful purpose to keep the matter pending further before the court below, and it is a deserving case when the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC should be invoked. 11. State of Punjab & Another, there is no fruitful purpose to keep the matter pending further before the court below, and it is a deserving case when the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC should be invoked. 11. In view thereof, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed and the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 14 of 2014, under Sections 363/366 of I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, pending in the court of Learned Special Sessions Judge, District Chamoli is hereby quashed. 12. Compounding application (CRMA No. 1085 of 2015) stands disposed accordingly.