JUDGMENT : DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J. 1. Respondent No. 2 Sushma Rani is the complainant in this case. At her instance, FIR No. 318/11 has been registered against the petitioners, under Sections 147, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. The investigation in the case is complete and Criminal Case No. 471/2013 is pending disposal in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. The accused-petitioners and respondent No.2- complainant have patched up all differences amongst them and compromised the matter. The copy of compromise is Annexure P-2. Both parties are present in person and their statements have been recorded separately. As a matter of fact, the respondent-complainant is no more interested to prosecute the accused-petitioners may be due to they are neighbors and want to live in complete harmony and peace. Otherwise also, the offence the accused-petitioners have allegedly committed is not of serious nature. They must have quarreled with each other and it can be believed that by this time having forgotten animosity, if any, and maintained cordial relations as well as living peacefully. 2. The offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code otherwise is compoundable under the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The perusal of Section 147 IPC reveals that the maximum sentence for the commission of an offence envisaged there under is two years. Any how, same is not compoundable. As regards, commission of offence punishable under Section 149 IPC, the same is also compoundable. 3. In view of the above position, nothing is left to be adjudicated upon on merits in this petition. True it is that an offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, as per settled legal principles, at this stage even in a case where compounding of an offence is not permissible, the parties i.e. the victim of an occurrence and the accused, if compromise the disputes between them in an amicable settlement may approach the High Court for quashing the FIR. 4. Support in this regard can be taken from the judgment of this Court in Ajay Kumar and others V. State of H.P. and another, Cr.MMO No. 239 of 2017, decided on September 8, 2017. 4. Support in this regard can be taken from the judgment of this Court in Ajay Kumar and others V. State of H.P. and another, Cr.MMO No. 239 of 2017, decided on September 8, 2017. In that case after placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the FIR registered at the instance of wife against her in-laws and also consequential proceedings were ordered to be quashed. Therefore, placing reliance on the judgment supra and also in the given facts and circumstances as well as compromise Annexure P-2, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioners to continue. Consequently, FIR, Annexure A-1 registered against them in Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. is ordered to be quashed and set aside. Consequential criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra also does not survive, hence, quashed and set aside. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. for compliance.