JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) - 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. 128 of 2017, dated 20 th May, 2017, registered under Sections 452, 325, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''IPC'') at Police Station Una, District Una, 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, Desh Raj, present in person in Court, duly identified by counsel, endorses compromise and in his statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has reiterated compromise by him with petitioners-accused and has deposed to the effect that he had asked the petitioner to vacate the rooms, rented out to the family of petitioner, for which the petitioners had agreed, but had not vacated the same, which had caused altercation between the parties, culminating into incident in question, whereupon he had lodged the F.I.R. and now the matter stands amicably settled between them as the petitioners have vacated the rooms rented to them and parties have decided to close the matter for future good relationship. Therefore, he do not want to pursue the present case F.I.R., lodged by him and the proceedings arising therefrom, rather he prays for quashing of the F.I.R. as well as proceedings arising out thereto. 3. The petitioner No.2 Dalwinder Singh in his statement on oath recorded separately, has stated that they have heard the statement of complainant/respondent No.2 Desh Raj. They endorse the same to be true and correct and have decided not to cause repetition of such untoward incident in future and they will not interfere in the rooms and shops owned and possessed by the complainant or his family. They pray for compounding the matter as per compromise arrived at between them. 4. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-State that accused are 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.P.C. 5. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.P.C., 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 Cr.P.C. 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. 6. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has sum 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. 7. No doubt Section 452 IPC is non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr. 7. No doubt Section 452 IPC is non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Honble Supreme Court in Gian Singhs and Narinder Singhs cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 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. 8. In present case, complainant has also appeared in person in this Court and his statement on oath, as discussed in para 2 supra, has also been recorded in this Court. He has also prayed for compounding the offences, as he has compromised the matter with petitioners-accused. 9. Offences in question, for material on record, do 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 Cr.P.C. From statements of respondent No. 2-complainant and petitioner No.2, recorded on oath in this Court, it is evident that they have decided not to cause repetition of such untoward incident in future and not to interfere in the rooms and shops owned and possessed by the complainant or his family. 10. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court and considering facts and material of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded and FIR No. 128 of 2017, dated 20 th May, 2017, registered under Sections 452, 325, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Una, District Una, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings, arising out thereto, stated to be pending in the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P., also stands quashed. 11. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Copy dasti.