JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —This petition stands instituted at the instance of the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 61 of 2017, registered at Police Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. wherein the petitioner herein is alleged to commit offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. During the pendency of the petition before this Court, respondent No.2 recorded his statement on oath, statement whereof stands duly reduced into writing and signatured by him, wherein he has "made" disclosures qua an amicable settlement occurring qua the relevant dispute with the petitioner accused herein. He has also proceeded to unveil therein qua his holding no objection in case the instant petition preferred by the petitioner, before this Court, for quashing of FIR No. 61 of 2017, registered at Police Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P., is accepted. Given the statement of respondent No.2, this Court hence accepts the instant petition. Even though some of the offences constituted in the FIR are noncompoundable, however, in the light of the verdict of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , relevant paragraph 11 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, whereupon this Court hold leverage, to quash an FIR besides consequential proceedings launched in pursuance thereof, even when, some of the offences recorded therein are non compoundable, especially for preventing abuse of process of Court or for securing the ends of justice, besides when in the face of a settlement arrived at inter se the accused, and, respondent No. 2/complainant qua the relevant offence(s) , hence render bleak the chances of the accused suffering conviction. paragraph No.11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "11. 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 to 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 petitioner/accused, from, his being subjected to the ordeal of unnecessary harassment, and, humiliation of facing trial, significantly when respondent No.2 in his statement recorded on oath, duly reduced into writing and signatured by him, renders communications therein qua his not intending to prosecute the petitioner/accused, whereupon 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(s) of the offence(s) being uninterested in prosecuting the petitioner/accused, resultantly when obviously the chances of the petitioner/accused suffering conviction are rendered bleak/remote, (a) factum whereof qua the remoteness and bleakness of the petitioner/accused suffering conviction, stands expostulated in the relevant paragraph 11 of the verdict of the Hon''ble Apex Court hence to be a relevant and guiding parameter, for accepting the settlement arrived at inter se the parties, (b) even when some of the offences are noncompoundable, as may be in this case. Resultantly, when the aforesaid 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 hence prods this Court to accept the settlement arrived at inter se the parties. 4. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 61 of 2017, registered at Police Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P., wherein the petitioner/accused herein is alleged to commit offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed, and, set aside. Also, further proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial, Court No.1, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P, are also quashed. All the pending application(s) , if any, are also disposed of.