JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the FIR No.62/2014 dated 11.4.2014 lodged at Police Station Goluwala, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 143 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. It is informed by learned Public Prosecutor that during the course of investigation, the police has found the petitioners guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. also. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners and the complainant party have some dispute in relation to harassment caused to the complainant Jeto Devi and for that the cross FIRs have been filed by both the parties. It is submitted that now the parties have already amicably settled their dispute, therefore, on the basis of said compromise, this FIR may be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also informed that in the FIR lodged at the instance of the petitioner No.1, some of the members of the complainant party have been charge sheeted by the police and the case is pending in the competent criminal court, however, the parties have already filed compromise before the court concerned in that case also. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has informed this Court that as the parties have already settled their dispute amicably and entered into a compromise and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges against the petitioners and has no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed. This Court vide order dated 18.8.2014 has directed the Investigating Officer to verify the compromise arrived at between the parties. 7. Today, the Investigating Officer, present in person, has produced the case diary and has also orally informed this Court that the parties have verified the compromise before the police also. 8. 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. 8. 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. 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 victims 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." 9. 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. 10. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.62/2014 dated 11.04.2014 of Police Station Goluwala, District Hanumangarh is quashed. The factual report dated 8.1.2015 be taken on record.Petition allowed. *******