JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - Respondent No. 2-complainant in person with her mother Smt. Lalita Devi. 2. In this petition FIR No. 73 of 2017 registered under Section 376 IPC against the accused-petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2 complainant has been sought to be quashed and set aside on the ground that respondent No. 2-complainant (prosecutrix) consequent upon the compromise Annexure P/3 to this petition has now decided not to prosecute the case any further. 3. The status report placed on record reveal that the investigation in the case is complete and challan also stand filed. The order Annexure P/4 reveal that Sessions Case No. 49- D/VII/2018 arising out of the FIR Annexure P/1 is pending disposal in the court of learned Additional District Judge (III), Kangra at Dharamshala. 4. The offence, the accused-petitioner allegedly committed, is not only grievous in nature but heinous also. The Apex Court in a recent judgment titled Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others V. State of Gujarat and another , (2017) 9 SCC 641 while reiterating the broad principles need to be followed while considering the prayer for quashing the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise has held that in a case involving commission of heinous offence like murder, rape and dacoity, the proceedings can not be quashed even if accused-petitioner and victim of the occurrence have compromised the dispute. This judgment reads as follow:- 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 5. The point in issue raised in this petition is, therefore, covered against the accused-petitioner by the judgment ibid. This petition, as such, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.