JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J. As both these appeals are directed against the same judgment and order arising out of the same Case Crime No. 7 of 2005, both are being disposed of by this common judgment. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for accused-respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records. The appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bhadohi Gyanpur in S..T. No. 33 of 2006 ( State Vs. Sarvesh Kumar and others) under Sections 498-A, 307 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Suriyawan, district Sant Ravidas Nagar whereby the learned trial court has convicted the husband and the father-in-law under Sections 498-A, 307 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act but has acquitted Smt. Shanti Devi, mother-in-law, Smt. Kavita Devi, sister-in-law (Jethani), and Smt. Rekha Devi, sister-in-law (Nanad) from the charges. The legality and correctness of the impugned judgment has been challenged in this appeal mainly on the ground that the learned trial court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence available on record and has failed to consider that the offence against opposite party nos. 2 to 4 i.e. mother-in-law and sisters-in-law, was also very much proved by the prosecution evidence available on record. On the aforesaid ground it has been prayed that the mother-in-law, Nanad and Jethani be also punished. Criminal Appeal No. 6981 of 2010 has been filed by the appellants Siddhi Nath Pandey, father-in-law and Sarvesh Kumar, husband, who were convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. for two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000, in default of fine two months additional imprisonment, under Section 307 I.P.C. for five years R.I. and fine of Rs. 3000, in default of fine three months additional R.I., under Section 506 I.P.C. for one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 in default of fine one month additional imprisonment and under Section 4 of D.P. Act for one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 in default of fine one month additional imprisonment to each appellant. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent nos. 1000 in default of fine one month additional imprisonment and under Section 4 of D.P. Act for one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 in default of fine one month additional imprisonment to each appellant. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and holding brief of learned counsel for the appellants in connected criminal appeal has submitted that the first information report containing a general allegation against the entire family, was lodged under the direction of the Magistrate on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the case was registered under Section 498-A, 307 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act against all the family members including even the married sister-in-law (Nanad) living separately. Learned counsel has submitted that it is a no injury case. It has further been submitted that the proceedings were initiated by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was also jointly filed by her. It has further been submitted that the matter was settled between the parties and a compromise deed was filed before the lower court concerned. On the basis of the said compromise, the matter was decided and divorce petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.2.2015 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi-Gyanpur and application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. While drawing our attention to annexure no. 1 of the supplementary affidavit filed by father-in-law Siddhi Nath Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 has contended that a perusal of annexure no. 1 which is a report of mediator signed by the parties and which is part of the record of maintenance case, clearly shows that the parties had already settled between them that the appeal pending before the High Court in respect of the dowry case would also be got decided in accordance with the settlement between the parties. Hence in view of the merits of the case as well as terms of the settlement between the parties, the appeal against acquittal of the accused-respondents Smt. Kavita Devi, Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Rekha Devi is liable to be dismissed and the appeal preferred on behalf of the appellants Siddhinath Pandey and Sarvesh Kumar against their conviction deserves to be allowed. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submission by arguing that in view of the allegations and evidence, the trial court has rightly held Siddhinath Pandey and Sarvesh Kumar guilty and has awarded punishment to them. Hence no interference is required even if the matter was subsequently settled between the parties specially in view of the legal position that the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not compoundable. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The first information was lodged on the basis of application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The marriage of the victim Pratima @ Babli was performed on 11.5.2003 with Sarvesh Kumar son of Siddhinath Pandey. At the time of marriage, motorcycle, clothes and other articles were given but the allegation is that there was further demand of dowry in shape of coloured T.V., a cow and Rs. 35,000/- in cash for B.Ed. training of husband Sarvesh Kumar and since the same could not be fulfilled, she was subjected to cruelty in connection with such demands. A male child was born out of the wedlock of Smt. Pratima @ Babli and Sarvesh Kumar. Subsequently, due to some differences between the husband and wife, she left her matrimonial house alongwith her son and started living in her parental house. The record shows that although there are allegations of demand of dowry and torture and attempt to even set her ablaze but neither any specific date has been mentioned nor there is any injury report. Rather it is a case of no injury. Only general allegations have been made not only against the husband but against all the family members i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law (Jethani) and sister-in-law (Nanad). The circumstances show that there was some family dispute between the husband and wife. The matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided in view of the compromise and divorce petition was also allowed in view of the settlement between the parties on the basis of mutual consent. So far as the acquittal of accused-respondents Smt. Kavita Devi, Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Rekha Devi is concerned, on a careful perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the firm view that? the trial court has rightly acquitted them finding no evidence against them. The defence had adduced sufficient evidence to show that married Nanad and Jethani were living separately and mother-in-law was an aged and infirm lady. the trial court has rightly acquitted them finding no evidence against them. The defence had adduced sufficient evidence to show that married Nanad and Jethani were living separately and mother-in-law was an aged and infirm lady. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to such accused under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, secondly, that a lower court, upon due appreciation of all evidence has found him innocent. Merely because another view is possible, no reason is there to interfere with the order of acquittal. In so far as the conviction of appellants (who are father-in-law and husband) in Criminal Appeal no. 6981 of 2010 is concerned, at the time of impugned judgment dated 29.9.2010 the compromise between the parties had not taken place. All the disputes were settled between the parties on 23.7.2014 when both the parties filed a compromise before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi-Gyanpur wherein it was, inter alia, settled between them that the parties had agreed that both the parties shall cooperate in disposal of the criminal appeal pending in Allahabad High Court in terms of compromise. Criminal Appeal No. 6981 of 2010 filed against their conviction by husband and father-in-law, has been opposed by learned A.G.A. mainly on the ground that offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. being non compoundable, no cognizance can be taken of the settlement between the parties in this regard. In so far as the contention of learned A.G.A. regarding the non compoundability of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, in a catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laiddown the guidelines and has directed the High Courts to exercise its inherent powers and to quash the criminal proceedings of the F.I.R. or the complaint in view of the compromise even in the cases related to non compoundable offences. In (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303; Gian Singh Versus State of U.P., the Full Bench of Supreme Court has held as under :- "As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non-compoundable case be quashed when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court provided the following guidelines :- Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although 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 wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of 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......... ?.. 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 victim and the offender and 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 F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of 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. 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." In (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675; B.S. Joshi and others Versus State of Haryana and another, in paragraphs 14 and 15 the Supreme Court has held as under : "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 382 of the Code." In (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582; Madan Mohan Abbot Versus State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 6 as under : "6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." Hence in view of the judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that in the interest of justice, even non compoundable cases which are settled between the parties can be decided in terms of the settlement between the parties. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have put to an end their all disputes by means of settlement, it does not appear just and proper to continue the criminal proceedings under Section 307 I.P.C.against the husband and father-in-law that too in a case where no injury has been caused to the victim. Considering the totality of circumstances and in the interest of justice the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants Siddhi Nath Pandey and Sarvesh Kumar deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 6981 of 2010 filed by the appellants Siddhi Nath Pandey and Sarvesh Kumar against their conviction is hereby allowed.? They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Both the appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their personal bonds and surety bonds are discharged. The Criminal Appeal U/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. 6942 of 2010 is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned forthwith.