JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The present applicants, who are before this Court, have been named in the First Information Report, which has been lodged by a police constable – Qumar Javed, under Sections 147/332/352/353/504/506 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. One of the applicants before this Court, namely, Noman Siddiqui is a journalist and the remaining applicants are his relatives, who run shops at Bara Bazaar, Mallital, Nainital. 2. The incident allegedly occurred on 19.06.2014 at about 02:00 p.m. at Bara Bazaar, Mallital, Nainital wherein it is alleged, as per the FIR that a vehicle (Tavera) was parked in a public place in the market, and a police constable who was on duty, asked the persons concerned to remove the said vehicle from public place. Thereafter, allegedly some altercation took place between the said constable and applicants, which escalated further and it is alleged that about 20-25 persons along with applicants attacked the nearby police station at Mallital, Nainital and threatened the police. Evidently no one has been hurt and has sustained any injuries from the side of the complainant. Thereafter, an FIR has been registered under Sections 147 / 332 / 352 / 353 / 504 / 506 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act against the present applicants. The police after investigating the case submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants. Consequently, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the applicants. Hence, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 3. This Court stayed the proceedings of the aforesaid case vide order dated 02.07.2015, which reads as under:- “Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate, present for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Saun, learned Deputy Advocate General, present for the State. Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2. An F.I.R. was lodged against the present applicants being F.I.R. No. 21 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 147/332/352/353/504/506 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, at Police Station Mallital, Nainital, in which after investigation police filed charge-sheet. Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2. An F.I.R. was lodged against the present applicants being F.I.R. No. 21 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 147/332/352/353/504/506 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, at Police Station Mallital, Nainital, in which after investigation police filed charge-sheet. Consequently, Magistrate took cognizance and hence the applicants have filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Considering the nature of offence and the fact that as a counterblast a complaint regarding the same incident was moved by the applicants before the SSP Nainital, an interference is called for in the matter. As an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1897 of 2014 (State Vs. Mohd. Usman & others), pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital shall remain stayed. List this matter on 17.07.2015 in a daily cause list.” 4. Meanwhile, it is alleged by the present applicants that regarding the same incident the police refused to lodge the First Information Report against the police officials and consequently, they moved an application to Senior Superintendent of Police on 21.06.2014. Although their complaint has not been registered by the police. The applicant has also annexed the medical report, which shows that they sustained injuries though these are simple in nature. 5. Be that as it may, now the respondent No. 2, who has lodged the FIR has appeared before the Court through his counsel – Mr. D.S. Mehta and has given a joint compounding application along with affidavits of applicant No. 1 and 3 respondent No. 2 stating therein that after lodging of the First Information Report, due to conciliation of respectable persons of Nainital they have now buried their differences and wants to withdraw the case (referred above) against the applicants. 6. Heard Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mukul Danghi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 7. 6. Heard Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mukul Danghi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 7. Considering the nature of offence which started from a minor altercation, which was not premeditated as well and the fact that none of the present applicants have any criminal background and they are respectable citizens and even one of the applicants is a journalist, who has an entire future before him, the applicants prays for quashing the entire proceedings (referred above) by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. These powers can be invoked only in rare cases where the court is convinced that the continuation of criminal proceedings will be a futile exercise and it would be unnecessary harassment to the parties. 9. In the present case, inter alia the FIR has been registered and the charge-sheet has also been filed under Sections 147 and 332 of I.P.C. Both the offences are non compoundable. Before discussing further in the matter it is relevant to quote Section 332 of I.P.C., which reads as under:- “”332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty- Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be published with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 10. From a bare perusal of the First Information Report it is clear that the crime alleged against the applicants is not of a nature, which may be called as a crime against the society. In any case, Section 332 of I.P.C. in this case is not made out against the present applicants, as no public servant has been hurt. Therefore, no offence under Section 332 of I.P.C. is made out. 11. In any case, Section 332 of I.P.C. in this case is not made out against the present applicants, as no public servant has been hurt. Therefore, no offence under Section 332 of I.P.C. is made out. 11. Learned counsel for the applicants further relied upon a decision of larger Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab & another reported on 2012 (10) SCC 303 . The relevant paragraph 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 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. 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.” 12. The above view has also been followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral & others Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & others reported in 2013 (11) SCC 497 . The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads under:- “In the light In light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No.163 dated 26/10/2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court are hereby quashed.” 13. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No.163 dated 26/10/2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court are hereby quashed.” 13. In the above decision the Hon’ble Apex Court following the decision of Gian Singh (supra) has quashed the proceedings inter alia in a case related to Section 147/148/149/323/307/452 and 506 of I.P.C., as from the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the alleged crime is not a crime of “extreme depravity” or “crime against society”. 14. Considering the fact that both the parties have entered into compromise and the complainant wants to withdraw the aforesaid criminal proceedings against the present applicants, and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, considering the fact that the applicants have no criminal history, this Court also finds that this is a deserving case where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of this Court should be exercised and criminal proceedings must be quashed. 15. Consequently, the compounding application (No. 1054 of 2015) stands allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1897 of 2014 under Sections 147/332/352/353/504/506 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital are hereby quashed. 16. With the aforesaid direction, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed.