JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The statements of the petitioners No. 1, 3, 4 and 6 herein recorded. They have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 12 of 2011 recorded in Police Station Baijnath, Distt. Kangra. The respondent No. 2 who is present before this Court has recorded his statement on oath and has portrayed therein his willingness to the prayer made in the petition by the petitioners being accepted by this Court. He has besides communicated therein that he has proceeded to record a statement constituting settlement/compromise with the petitioners herein for facilitating, rearing and nursing of peace, amity and good relations with the petitioners who are his in-laws. Given the communication made by the complainant/respondent No. 2 in his statement of his readiness to accept any direction rendered by this Court for the quashing of the FIR No. 12 of 2011 registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 452, 427,323, 406, 147, 148 and 149 IPC as also the consequential proceedings, if any, as may have come to be launched and pending before the Judicial Magistrate concerned, the prayer made in the petition is accepted. 2. Furthermore, even though some offences constituted in the FIR inasmuch as the offence constituted under Section 452 IPC being settled through the mechanism as adopted by the parties before this Court being impermissible. However, in the face of a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter mandating that where the victim of the offence and the accused come to record a settlement/strike a compromise even qua offences which are not compoundable, hence would rather not pave way for the success of the complaint/prosecution rather the prosecution of the offender for his having committed the alleged non-compoundable offences, would be an exercise in futility, is a preponderant and preeminent factor to be borne in mind by this Court while exercising the plenary jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threats the well being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." 3. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." 3. As such, when it is mandated therein that to secure/restore peace and put the dispute inter se the victim of the offence and the accused to rest, the courts of law can proceed to accept the settlement even when some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non-compoundable. Revering the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court accepts the joint proposal of the petitioner/accused and complainant to settle/compromise the dispute comprised in the FIR even when some of the offences constituted therein are not compoundable. Consequently, while accepting the settlement arrived at inter-se the parties before this Court, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 12 of 2011 and the criminal proceedings, if any, pending against the accused/petitioners before the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Petition stands disposed of, as also the pending applications, if any.