JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. Order Present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.306 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC at P.S. Sadar District Una H.P. It is pleaded that FIR was registered in P.S. Sadar Una H.P. at the instance of wife of petitioner No.1. It is pleaded that complainant Shama Jaswal alleged that her marriage was solemnized on dated 31.1.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs and her father had spent more than Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) on her marriage. In complaint the complainant alleged that she and her husband lived together and it is further alleged by complainant in the complaint that complainant/wife is educated and peace loving lady and has maintained a good reputation. It is pleaded that there is recital in complaint that complainant was maltreated by accused persons and there was also an allegation that accused persons also demanded dowry and compelled the complainant to leave her matrimonial house on dated 18.3.2013. It is pleaded that thereafter an agreement was executed between complainant and accused that co-accused i.e. husband of complainant will pay Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lacs fifty thousand only) and then mutual divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 would be filed. It is pleaded that in pursuance of the agreement mutual divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 was filed before the learned District Judge Una bearing case No. 125 of 2014. It is pleaded that mutual divorce petition under Section 13-B is fixed before learned District Judge Una for dated 11.5.2015. It is pleaded that in view of compromise executed between the parties FIR No. 306 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 registered at the instance of complainant and consequential criminal proceedings be quashed. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the State of H.P. pleaded therein that after investigation prima facie criminal case under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC was made out and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and case No. 356/1 of 2014 is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Una and same is fixed for presence of accused on dated 11.2.2015. It is also admitted that petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is also pending before learned District Judge Una and same is fixed for dated 11.5.2015. It is also admitted that petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is also pending before learned District Judge Una and same is fixed for dated 11.5.2015. It is pleaded that present petition filed by petitioners be dismissed. 3. Court personally called the parties in Court and their statements recorded. Complainant Smt. Shama Jaswal has stated that she has no objection if FIR No. 306 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC at P.S. Sadar Una is quashed. There is recital in statement of Smt. Shama Jaswal that she had given the statement voluntarily without any coercion and undue influence. 4. Following points arise for determination in this petition:- 1. Whether FIR No. 306 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 registered in P.S. Sadar Una H.P. and consequential criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of amicable settlement inter se the parties as alleged? 2. Final Order. Findings up on Point No.1 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicants that FIR No. 306 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC at P.S. Sadar Una H.P. at the instance of complainant namely Shama Jaswal wife of Manmeet Singh co-accused and further submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants that final settlement took place inter se the parties and co-accused Manmeet Singh had paid an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven lac fifty thousand only) to Smt. Shama Jaswal and mutual divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 already stood filed before learned District Judge Una which is pending for disposal and in view of amicable settlement inter se the parties FIR No. 306 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and consequential criminal proceedings be quashed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is satisfied that amicable settlement has been executed inter se the parties. It is well settled law that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Court has inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings even in those criminal cases which are not compoundable. Court is satisfied that amicable settlement has been executed inter se the parties. It is well settled law that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Court has inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings even in those criminal cases which are not compoundable. It is also well settled law that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with cautiously and it is also well settled law that only the criminal offences which are of personal category in nature should be allowed to be compounded and offence which are against the society should not be allowed to be compounded. (See Latest HLJ 2014 H.P. 1248 titled Ravinder Singh @ Laddi and others vs. State of H.P. and another, See JT 2014(4) SC 573 titled Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, See: JT 2003(3) SC 277 titled B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, See JT 2012(9) SC 426 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another) It is well settled law that criminal proceedings of offences should not be quashed which are of (1) Murder (2) Rape (3) Dacoity (4) Prevention of Corruption Act (5) Criminal offence under Section 307 IPC. It is well settled law that disputes which arise out of commercial transaction, matrimonial dispute and family dispute should be allowed to be compounded by the Court in the ends of justice. In view of the fact that present case is of matrimonial dispute inter se the parties and in view of the fact that complainant Smt. Shama Jaswal personally appeared before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. and had given statement voluntarily that FIR and consequential criminal proceedings be quashed and in view of the fact that complainant already received Rs. 7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven lac fifty thousand only) from one of co-accused Manmeet Singh it is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice to quash FIR and consequential criminal proceedings. Hence point No. 1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 Final Order 6. In view of my findings upon point No. 1 petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and FIR No. 306 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC at P.S. Sadar Una H.P. and consequential criminal proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Una are ordered to be quashed with immediate effect in the ends of justice. Statements of parties recorded before Hon’ble High Court of H.P. shall form part and parcel of order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.