JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Ms.Shilpa Sood, Advocate, prays for and is permitted to, place on record, a duly executed power of attorney in her favour by the respondent No. 2, for hence authorizing her representation on her behalf in successive proceedings before this Court. The instant petition stands instituted by the petitioners-accused, under, the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. wherein they have made a prayer for quashing of FIR No. 209 of 2015 of 13.10.2015, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP wherein the petitioners herein, are alleged to commit offences punishable, under, Sections 498(A), 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, besides a prayer is made therein qua consequential thereto criminal proceedings launched against the petitioners /accused, being also ordered to be quashed and set aside. 2. During the pendency of the petition before this Court, the respondent has rendered her statement on oath, statement whereof is reduced into writing signatured by her, wherein occur communication(s) qua an amicable settlement occurring interse the petitioners vis--vis respondent No. 2/complainant. She has also proceeded to therein, make disclosures qua hers holding no objection in case, the instant petition preferred by the petitioners before this Court, for, quashing of FIR No. 209 of 2015, of 13.10.2015, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, is accepted, besides, echoes qua consequential thereto proceedings pending before the Court concerned, being also ordered to be quashed and set aside. Given the statement, made before this Court, by the respondent No. 2, thereupon this Court is constrained to accept the instant petition. Even though some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non-compoundable, however, in light of the verdict of the Hon''ble Apex Court, rendered in case titled " Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , relevant paragraph 11 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, whereupon this Court holds leverage, to pronounce an order for quashing an FIR besides qua consequential proceedings launched in pursuance thereof, even in respect of non compoundable offences, especially, for preventing abuse of process of Court or for securing the ends of justice, besides when in the face of material qua an evident settlement arrived at inter se the petitioners qua the relevant offence(s), rather render bleak the chances of the accused suffering conviction. Paragraph No.11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "11. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non compoundable case be quashed when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court provided the following guidelines: ( Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 ):- "58 Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put on an end peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threats the will being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, decoity etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions of the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc., or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed." 3. Consequently, with a settlement standing arrived at inter se the parties herein, thereupon this Court is constrained to hence conclude, that, even if some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non compoundable, yet for securing the ends of justice, besides for precluding the petitioners/accused being subjected to the ordeal of unnecessary harassment and humiliation of facing trial, (i) significantly when respondent No. 2/complainant, in her statement recorded on oath, statement whereof, stands duly reduced into writing and signatured, by her, communicates therein qua her not intending to prosecute the petitioners /accused, (ii) thereupon the compromise/settlement arrived at inter se the parties, warrants imputation of reverence thereto, by this Court. Moreover, what further prods this Court to revere the settlement arrived at inter se the parties, is comprised in the fact "of with the" victim of the offence(s) being uninterested in prosecuting the petitioners/accused, (iii) resultantly when obviously the chances of the petitioners /accused hence suffering conviction are rendered bleak/remote, factum whereof qua the remoteness and bleakness of the petitioners/accused hence suffering conviction rather stands expostulated in the relevant paragraph 11 of the verdict of the Hon''ble Apex Court, to be, a relevant and guiding parameter, for accepting the settlement arrived at inter se the parties, even when some of the offences are non-compoundable, as in this case. Resultantly, when the said parameter expostulated in relevant paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court, para whereof stands extracted hereinabove, has, for the reasons aforesaid hence begotten satiation, satiation thereof prods this Court to accept the settlement arrived at inter se the parties. 4. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 209 of 2015, wherein the petitioners /accused herein are alleged to commit offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside. Also, further proceedings are also quashed. All the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.