ORDER : 1. We have heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties. 2. These matters came up for final hearing when the parties appeared before us and submitted that the matters have already been settled. The Settlement Agreement duly entered into between the parties has also been filed before this Court by way of an affidavit. 3. It appears that when the matters were listed earlier, this Court by an Order dated 9-9-2015 was pleased to refer the matter before Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, a retired Judge of this Court, to act as the Mediator with a request to the learned Mediator to enter into mediation between the parties in the first week of October, 2015, if possible. That this Court felt the desirability of an amicable settlement having regard to the nature of transaction involved, is discernable from the following extract of the order dated 9-9-2015 :- "We have sent the matter for mediation hoping that the parties and the learned counsel appearing for them shall endeavour to settle the dispute so that a climate of settlement is established in this country in the field of financial cavils and the matters of this nature do not travel to police station. They must remember the age old saying "A prosperous economy is founded on faith". 4. Thereafter, through mediation between the parties, the matter has been settled and final settlement agreement has been signed by all the parties. It appears that most of the offences involved are compoundable in nature excepting one under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code which is a non-compoundable offence which has duly been considered and taken note of at the time of settlement entered into between the parties. 5. This Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 has specifically stated in paragraph 61 of the Judgment which is as follows:- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statues like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal cases would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." (Emphasis supplied) 6. In view of the above and the singular facts and circumstances, we pass an order in terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties and quash all the proceedings filed by the parties against each other which are pending before the criminal court. 7. A Settlement Agreement duly entered into between the parties shall form part of this order. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.2395 of 2014 filed by the accused is disposed of in the afore-stated terms. 9. In view of disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.2395 of 2014 filed by the accused, nothing remains in other Criminal Appeal Nos. 2396-2397 of 2014 filed by the complainant and the same are also disposed of on the above terms.