ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. The first petitioner-husband and the second respondent-wife are present before the Court. Both of them have filed independent affidavits before this Court stating that due to the intervention of the well wishers and the elders, both of them have compromised the matter out of Court and they have no interest to proceed with the case. Therefore, respondent No. 2 has absolutely no objections to quash the proceedings. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in SC No. 114/2011 pending on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, at Kalaburagi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. It appears, the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent took place about 11 years ago and they lived happily for some time and thereafter differences arose, which led to the filing of Criminal Case against the husband and his family members for the above said offences in Crime No. 92/2009 which was culminated in SC No. 114/2011 as noted above. 3. When the parties are closely related, particularly when it is a matrimonial dispute and the matter has been resolved amongst themselves and in order to facilitate themselves to live happily in their future life, they have made this petition for quashing of the proceedings. 4. In this regard, it is worth to note the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 , (2012 AIR SCW 5333) in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, wherein, the Apex Court has held that: "Power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal Court of compounding offences under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held depends on facts and circumstances of each. Before exercise of inherent quashment power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. Before exercise of inherent quashment power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim's family and offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. But criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing. Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute. High Court may quash criminal proceedings. High Court, in such cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and whether to secure ends of justice. It is appropriate the criminal case is put to an end. If such questions are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 5. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that though the offences are non-compoundable in nature and the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to compound the offences, but in order to facilitate the parties, the High Court or the Supreme Court can exercise extraordinary powers u/Ss. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings. 6. So far as it relates to Section 307 of IPC is concerned, this Court had an occasion to deal with such an aspect in a case reported in 2011 C.R.R 415 (Kant.) between Madarsab and others v. State of Karnataka, wherein, this Court has exercised powers u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC along with other offences. Therefore, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The said principle cannot be invariably applicable to all the cases but when it falls within the four corners of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (2012 AIR SCW 5333), then the Court can exercise such powers to put the entire dispute between the parties at rest. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, particularly, this case is concerned, it is a matrimonial matter, husband and wife joined together and they are living together and they would like to live happy married life in future. Hence, I do not find any strong reason to reject the petition. Therefore, the affidavits filed by the parties before this Court are accepted. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in SC No. 114/2011 pending on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No. 92/2009 which was registered against the petitioners 1 to 8 herein is hereby quashed.