JUDGMENT 1. - Pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 4.3.2015, the Investigating Officer, present in person, has submitted that the application filed by the respondent No.2 with a prayer for withdrawing the complaint was received by him on 7.12.2014 and on the very day, the same was taken on record. However, the investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.191/14 dated 7.11.2014 of Police Station Women, Jodhpur has already been concluded, hence no action has been taken on the application filed by the respondent No.2. 2. The Investigating Officer has further informed that during the course of investigation, the police has not found involvement of the any other person except petitioner Navneet Mathur S/o Satya Narain Mathur in commission of crime. 3. The explanation submitted by the Investigating Officer is satisfactory and the same is accepted. 4. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.191/2014 dated 7.11.2014 of Police Station Women, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 I.P.C. on the basis of compromise. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has already been resolved and they have decided to live separately and for that purpose, application under Section 13-B for seeking divorce by mutual consent has already been filed before the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur. It is contended that since the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been resolved, the impugned FIR may be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has confirmed that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been resolved and respondent No.2 has no objection, if the impugned FIR filed against the petitioner is quashed. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in JT 2012(9) SC - 426 has held as below:- "57. 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. 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." 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably, it is a fit case where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and proceeding pending against the petitioners can be quashed. 8. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.191/2014 dated 7.11.2014 of Police Station Women, Jodhpur is quashed.Petition allowed. *******