JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J —This petition has been filed by petitioneraccused, pending investigation in criminal proceedings in case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') in FIR No. 90 of 2017, dated 10.07.2017, registered with Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, (Annexure P-2) , arrived at between petitioner-accused and injured and complainant i.e. respondents No. 4 & 5 . 2. Petitioner is present in person in Court. Respondents No. 4 & 5, who are also present in person in Court, duly identified by their counsel, endorse compromise, Annexure P-2 and in their statements, recorded on oath in this Court, have not only reiterated signing of the compromise by them with accused with free consent and will without any coercion and pressure, but also deposed to the effect that the accident had not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of accused. Complainant has deposed that though he was present on the spot, but he could not say with certainty that it was rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner which resulted into the accident, as his shop is situated at a distance of 200-250 meters from the spot and he rushed to the spot only after hearing the noise of collusion of the vehicles, however, on the basis of observation at that time and information received from the passers-by who had seen the accident, he had drawn the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent act of the petitioner and accordingly, he had lodged the complaint with the police and arrived at the spot. Similarly, complainant-Vijay Saini has also deposed that the accident had taken place all of a sudden, cause of which was not known to him and on the basis of information received from others, he was considering that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of accused/petitioner. However, later on, petitioner had met him and explained the manner in which the accident had taken place and in his opinion, his impression that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner was incorrect, therefore, he does not want to proceed with criminal proceeding against petitioner. 3. However, later on, petitioner had met him and explained the manner in which the accident had taken place and in his opinion, his impression that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner was incorrect, therefore, he does not want to proceed with criminal proceeding against petitioner. 3. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC. 4. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.PC, 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''s family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominating 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 of 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. 5. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. It was also held that no category of 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. 5. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has summed up and laid down principles, by which the High Courts 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. 6. Sections 337 and 338 of IPC are compoundable and Section 279 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s and Narinder Singh''s cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.PC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, it was warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves. 7. In present case, complainant and injured have appeared in person in the Court and have endorsed the compromise filed with petition duly signed by them and accused with free consent and will without any coercion. Their statements recorded on oath in the Court, do not disclose the rash and negligent driving of accused, rather reflect that even in case criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, there is no probability of conviction of accused. It is also stated that the complaint was lodged by respondent No. 5 on the basis of his observation and information supplied by passers-by, which he feels not to be correct. Respondents No. 4 has categorically stated that in these circumstances, he is not interested to continue with criminal proceedings against accused. 8. 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. Respondents No. 4 has categorically stated that in these circumstances, he is not interested to continue with criminal proceedings against accused. 8. 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. In view of statement of respondent No. 4, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is also too remote. 9. 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. 90 of 2017, dated 10.07.2017, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. is quashed. It is stated that as per information of petitioner, challan is yet to be presented as investigation has not been finalized yet. Consequent to quashing of FIR, investigation against accused also stands closed. Needless to say, criminal proceedings, if any, initiated in pursuance to aforesaid FIR by now, also stands quashed. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.