ORDER : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that earlier when the Misc. Petition was filed only injured complainant was arrayed as respondent no. 2. He submits that there are four injured persons and only one was impleaded, now he may be allowed to implead rest of the injured persons who are victims in this matter. On his oral prayer, he is allowed to implead rest of the injured persons/victims. He submitted amended cause title which is taken on record. 2. Office is directed to place it at appropriate place in the file. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners/accused and respondent no. 2 to 5 are cousins and the dispute between them is in regard to public way, cross cases were lodged by both the parties, FIR No. 302/2011 at Police Station Vishwakarma, Jaipur (North) was lodged by the petitioner party and FIR No. 301/2011 was lodged by the respondent no. 2/complainant, the dispute has already been settled amicably by the parties and compromise has already been submitted in both the cases, since criminal case initiated on the basis of FIR No. 302/2011, Police Station Vishwakarma for offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, which is compoundable, therefore compromise has been verified and attested by the Trial Court and complainant party persons have already been acquitted on the basis of compromise. 4. Compromise has already been submitted in Sessions Case No. 2/2012 before the Trial Court i.e. Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan by the petitioners/accused and respondents/victims which has been verified by the Learned Trial Court and same has been attested for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 34 IPC, since offence under Sections 308 and 324 IPC are not compoundable, therefore Learned Trial Court refused to attest the compromise for aforesaid two offences. He submits that injuries sustained by the respondents/victims/injured are all simple in nature, none of the injury is dangerous to life or grievous and both the parties have settled their dispute amicably, they are cousins, therefore after compromise continuing criminal proceedings will be abuse of process of Court, therefore while exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Misc. Petition may be allowed and the criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 324 and 308 IPC against the petitioners may be quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise. Petition may be allowed and the criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 324 and 308 IPC against the petitioners may be quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise. He submits that petitioners/accused and respondents injured persons are present before this Court and are being represented by their counsel. 5. Mr. Mahender Sharma Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 to 5 injured victims also supported the aforesaid submissions. 6. Learned PP Mr. Aladeen Khan also did not oppose the petition and submitted that if on the basis of compromise proceedings of Sessions Case No. 02/2012 (State of Rajasthan v. Bharat Lal) for offences under Sections 308 and 324 IPC is quashed then he has no objections. 7. I have considered the submissions made at bar. In the matter of Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :- "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. 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 predominatingly 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 is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 8. Here the dispute between parties is private in nature, they are cousins, they have settled their dispute amicably, none of the injury is said to reported as dangerous to life, the allegations are not so serious, since compromise has already been submitted before the Trial Court which has been verified by the Trial Court and petitioners/accused have already been acquitted for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 34 IPC on the basis of compromise, therefore after compromise continuing criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 308 and 324 IPC will be the abuse of process of the Court and in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, this Misc. Petition deserves acceptance which is hereby allowed and the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 02/2012 (State of Rajasthan v. Bharat Lal) for offences under Sections 308 and 324 IPC pending before Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan is quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise.