ORDER : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Distt. Jodhpur, in Criminal Case No. 331/2011 whereby compromise between parties for offence under Section 420 IPC was verified but for offence under Section 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC were not verified and to quash the criminal proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the compromise has happened, therefore, the matter may be closed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this Court to a judgment, which is considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 9549/2016), the relevant portion of this judgment, reads as under:— “16 Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the First Information Report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of them has a bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the FIR would sub-serve or secure the ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The first is that the appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second is that the appellants have criminal antecedents, reflected in the chart which has been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. The High Court adverted to the modus operandi which had been followed by the appellants in grabbing valuable parcels of land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to have been connected with such nefarious activities by opening bogus bank accounts. It was in this view of the matter that the High Court observed that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. It was in this view of the matter that the High Court observed that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. We agree with the view of the High Court. The present case, as the allegations in the FIR would demonstrate, is not merely one involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting parties. The case involves allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. If the allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident that they implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or interest in land. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances, the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code.” 4. In light of the aforesaid submission and precedent law submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, no interference is called for, hence, the present misc. petition is dismissed.