JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') has been filed by petitioners-accused, for quashing FIR No. 169 of 2017, dated 19th April, 2017, registered under Sections 323, 325, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, copy whereof has been furnished in the Court, arrived at between petitioners-accused and complainant-respondent No. 2. 2. Respondent No. 2-complainant, Shri Arvind Kumar, present in person in Court, duly identified by counsel, endorses compromise and in his statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has not only reiterated signing of the compromise by him with petitioners-accused with free consent and will, without any coercion and pressure, but, also deposed to the effect that the incident had not occurred owing to any enmity between him and the accused-petitioners, but, out of anger on account of delay of payment of labour charges to accused-petitioners. Complainant has further deposed that later on, he has realized the cause of quarrel with him and accused-petitioners have also realized that incident could have been avoided and now, in his opinion, the incident had taken place out of anger, therefore, he does not want to proceed with criminal proceedings against accused-petitioners. 3. The offence under Section 323 and 506 IPC are compoundable without permission of the Court whereas offence under Section 325 IPC is compoundable with permission of the Court. 4. On the basis of compromise, an application under Section 320 CrPC, filed for compounding before Juvenile Justice Board is pending consideration since 30th May, 2018, but, for want of appointment/posting of Presiding Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board since long, no order is being passed in the said application. Petitioners have to produce their character certificates before concerned authority for recruitment in Army on or before 23rd August, 2018. But, unless matter is compounded, SHO concerned will not issue their character certificates. Therefore, petitioners have been constrained to file the present petition. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that keeping in view the fact that the offence involved in the case is compoundable without and with permission of the Court, therefore, no reply is intended to be filed. 6. But, unless matter is compounded, SHO concerned will not issue their character certificates. Therefore, petitioners have been constrained to file the present petition. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that keeping in view the fact that the offence involved in the case is compoundable without and with permission of the Court, therefore, no reply is intended to be filed. 6. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 CrPC with no statutory limitation including Section 320 CrPC, has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 CrPC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society. 7. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society. 7. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has summed up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings. 8. In present case, complainant has appeared in person in the Court and has endorsed the compromise, copy whereof has been furnished in the Court, duly signed by him and accused with free consent and will, without any coercion. His statement, recorded on oath in the Court, does not indicate that the incident had taken place because of any enmity, rather, reflects that the same has taken place out of anger. In these circumstances, he is not interested to continue with criminal proceedings against accused-petitioners. 9. Offence in question does not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 10. Considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No. 169 of 2017, dated 19th April, 2017, registered under Sections 323, 325, 506 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, Case No. 17/1 of 2017, titled State versus Sachin and others, pending before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. also stands quashed. 11. At this stage, petitioners submit that the time left to submit the antecedents/character certificates is too short and in case of delay in issuance of the character certificates by the concerned SHO of Police Station Paonta Sahib, they will suffer irreparable loss in their lives. 12. 11. At this stage, petitioners submit that the time left to submit the antecedents/character certificates is too short and in case of delay in issuance of the character certificates by the concerned SHO of Police Station Paonta Sahib, they will suffer irreparable loss in their lives. 12. In view of the submissions made by the petitioners, SHO, Police Station Paonta Sahib is directed that he shall not withhold the character certificates of the petitioners for registration of FIR in present case and shall issue the said certificates in light of the order passed in present petition without any delay, in case the petitioners are not involved in any other case, so as to enable them to submit the same with the concerned authority well in time. 13. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.