JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. The applicants, by means of present criminal miscellaneous application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seek following reliefs, among other: “(i) To allow this application and quash the charge sheet dated 06.7.2015, summoning order dated 17.12.2015 and entire proceeding of criminal case no. 3867 of 2015 “State vs. Jarnail Singh and others” under section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. P.S. Bazpur pending before the Court of J.M. Kashipur, District-Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. (ii) It is further prayed that the further proceedings of Criminal Case no. 3867/2015 pending before the Court of J.M. Kashipur, District-Udham Singh Nagar and operation and effect of summoning order dated 17.12.2015 passed therein may be stayed during the pendency of this application before this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Victim Jagtar Singh is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate. Accused-applicants Jarnail, Surjan, Manga Singh, Vikram, Sahab Singh and Sukhwant Singh are also present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Jagtar Singh (victim) has submitted that he does not want to proceed against the applicants, inasmuch as, the dispute has been settled amicably with the intervention of some elderly persons. 3. Whereas Sections 341, 323, 427, 504 & 506 of I.P.C are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the other Sections 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C. are not. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the victim should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicants or not? 4. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2013), 1 SCC (Cri) 160 comes to the aid of this Court, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below: “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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 5. A bare reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s case and host of other decisions will indicate that this Court in its discretion should permit the victim to compound such offences in the interest of justice. 6. Compromise Application No. 1158 of 2016 is thus allowed. As a consequence of the same, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3867/2015 “State vs. Jarnail Singh and others” under section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427, 504 & 506 of IPC, pending before the Court of J.M. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed qua applicants. 7. C-482 Petition No. 889 of 2016 is therefore, allowed and, as a consequence thereof, charge-sheet filed against the accused-applicants is hereby set-aside on the basis of compromise between the parties.