ORDER : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi submits that petitioner/accused and respondent no. 2/complainant are husband and wife. Due to some misunderstanding and matrimonial dispute respondent no. 2/complainant lodged impugned FIR No. 242/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC wherein after investigation police submitted charge sheet against the present petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. He submits that aforesaid Criminal Case being 21/2015 is pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T Act Cases), Ajmer. Now parties have settled their dispute amicably and compromise has already been submitted before the Trial Court which was verified and attested by the Learned Trial Court for offence under Section 406 IPC and on the basis of the compromise petitioner has already been acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC but Learned Trial Court rejected the application seeking permission for compromise for offence under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. He further submits that since petitioner and respondent no. 2/complainant are living together, therefore continuing criminal case may disturb their matrimonial life, therefore in the interest of justice this Misc. Petition may be allowed and proceedings for offence under Section 498- A IPC pending against the present petitioner may be quashed and set aside. He further submits that petitioner and respondent no. 2/complainant are present in person before this Court today. 2. Learned PP Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore didn’t object in allowing this Revision Petition. 3. Mr. Mohammed Anees Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2/complainant also supported the submissions made by Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi and submitted that respondent no. 2/complainant is present before this Court and she has no objection in allowing this 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 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.’’ 6. Since parties have already submitted their compromise before the Trial Court which has already been verified and attested and on the basis of compromise petitioner has already been acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC. Now in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment no purpose will be served continuing the criminal proceedings for offence under Section 498-A IPC after compromise between the parties, therefore this Misc. Petition is allowed and the Criminal Regular Case No. 21/2015 pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P. N.D.T Act Cases), Ajmer arised out of FIR No. 242/2014 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer for offence under Section 498-A IPC pending against the present petitioner and other consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside.