JUDGMENT : The petitioners have challenged several orders passed in Complaint Case No. 686 of 2008. They are aggrieved of order taking cognizance and various orders by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against them at different stages. 2. The complainant, who is the wife of the petitioner no. 1, has been arrayed as O.P. No. 2 in this quash-petition. 3. O.P. No. 2 has appeared through Mr. Tarun Kumar, the learned counsel. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, the learned APP appears for the State of Jharkhand. 4. The petitioner no. 1 and his wife-O.P. No. 2 are present in the Court. 5. The compromise petition has been signed by all the petitioners as well as O.P. No. 2. 6. Mr. Birendra Burman, the learned counsel for the petitioners identifies the petitioner no. 1 and Mr. Tarun Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 identifies her. 7. To a court's query, O.P. No. 2 has affirmed that she is staying with her husband and she does not want to prosecute Complaint Case being C-686 of 2008. 8. The petitioners have produced a copy of the compromise petition signed by the petitioner no. 1 and O.P. No. 2 on 31.12.2018 at court compound, Hazaribag vide Annexure-3 to this quash-petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now O.P. 2 is residing with her husband, O.P. No. 2 does not intend to proceed further with the Complaint Case No. 686 of 2008. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that understanding between the petitioner no. 1 and O.P. no. 2 would now bring peace in the matrimonial life of the parties and no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceeding in C-686 of 2008 continues. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the decision in “B.S. Joshi and others Vrs. State of Haryana and another” reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and “Gian Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and another” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , to submit that in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can quash the criminal proceeding, particularly, arising out of a matrimonial dispute. In “Gian Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and another” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court has observed as under : 61. In “Gian Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and another” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court has observed as under : 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. 10. On consideration of the facts brought on record, statement of the parties and the law on the subject, I am of the opinion that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the Complaint Case being C-686 of 2008 including the order taking cognizance dated 14.01.2009, NBW issued vide order dated 07.12.2013, process under section 82 Cr.P.C. dated 14.09.2017, process under section 83 Cr.P.C. dated 25.01.2018 against petitioner nos. 2 and 4 and NBW issued vide order dated 14.09.2017, process under section 82 Cr.P.C. dated 02.07.2018, process under section 83 Cr.P.C. dated 31.08.2018 against petitioner nos. 1 and 3, should be quashed. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. Bail-bonds furnished by the parties, if already not cancelled, stand discharged. 13. In the result, Cr. M.P. No. 81 of 2019 stands allowed. 14. I.A. No. 608 of 2019 stands disposed of. 15. Let a copy of the order be given to the learned APP. 16. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.