ORDER : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Mr. Atul Kumar Jain Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is husband and 2 is mother-in-law of respondent no. 2/complainant, the dispute between them is matrimonial in nature which is private one and they have settled their dispute amicably, compromise has already been submitted before the Trial Court. Learned Trial Court verified and attested the same and on the basis of compromise petitioners have already been acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC as this offence is compoundable, since offence under Section 498A is not compoundable, therefore Learned Trial Court refused to attest the compromise for this offence. He submits that after compromise no fruitful purpose will be served continuing the criminal proceedings for offence under Section 498A, therefore the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 375/2010 pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, District Ajmer (FIR No. 239/2010, Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, Ajmer) be quashed and set aside. He also submits that respondent no. 2/complainant is present in person before this Court along with her counsel. 2. Mr. Nemi Chand Sharma Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2/complainant submits that respondent no. 2/complainant is present before this Court to whom he identifies. He submits that if the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 375/2010 pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, District Ajmer (FIR No. 239/2010, Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, Ajmer) for offence under Section 498A IPC is quashed then respondent no. 2 has no objection. 3. Learned PP Mr. Jitendra Shrimali also didn't object in allowing this Misc. Petition. 4. I have considered the submissions made at bar. 5. 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. 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." 6. Here in the case in hand, the dispute between parties is matrimonial in nature which is private one, the same has been settled amicably, compromise has already been submitted before the Trial Court which has been verified and attested for offence under Section 406 IPC, now after compromise continuing criminal proceedings for offence under Section 498A IPC is abuse of process of Court, therefore in view of Gyan Singh's judgment (supra), this Misc. petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioners being Criminal Case No. 375/2010 pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, District Ajmer (FIR No. 239/2010, Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, Ajmer) is quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise. Accordingly, the Misc. Petition is allowed.