Order Javed Iqbal Wani, J.—Inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.PC is being invoked by the petitioners for quashment of FIR No. 06/2020 dated 01-02-2020, registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, Sunderbani, Rajouri, U/Ss 420, 376, 342 IPC. 2. The background facts, those stem out from the petition, according to the petitioners, are that the petitioner No. 1, was working as a Peon in Government Girls High School, Marchola, Sunderbani, along with petitioner No.2 and were well acquainted to each other. According to the petitioners, a dispute arose between them over a financial matter at the residence of the petitioner No.2, whereupon, the petitioner No.1 got an F.I.R No. 06/2020 registered U/Ss 420, 376, 342 IPC before the respondent herein. It is being stated by the petitioners that while getting the aforesaid F.I.R registered, the petitioner No.1 was neither aware about the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner No.2, nor was she made aware about the same or else allowed to read the F.I.R after its registration by the respondent. 3. According to the petitioners, upon completion of investigation in the aforesaid F.I.R, Charge Sheet came to be filed before the Court of Munsiff, Sunderbani, Rajouri on 03-02-2020, where the statement of petitioner No.1 was recorded, which statement, according to the said petitioner, was not recorded as per her version. Thus, aggrieved thereof, a writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner No.1 before this Court being WP (C) 1580/2020, wherein, besides seeking quashment of the statement so recorded on 03-02-2020, statement u/s 164-A Cr.PC was prayed for to be recorded by the Court below. The said writ petition is stated to be pending. 4. According to the petitioners, the dispute amongst them was regarding a financial matter and the F.I.R in question could not have been registered for offences U/Ss 420, 376, 342 IPC. 5. According to the petitioners the said financial dispute amongst them stands settled and compromised and that the petitioner No.1 does not want to pursue the case instituted pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R supra. According to the petitioners, since the dispute amongst them has been settled amicably without any undue influence, pressure or coercion, as such no useful purpose will be served for proceeding with the subject F.I.R, inasmuch as consequent trial thereof which, therefore, is required to be quashed. 6. According to the petitioners, since the dispute amongst them has been settled amicably without any undue influence, pressure or coercion, as such no useful purpose will be served for proceeding with the subject F.I.R, inasmuch as consequent trial thereof which, therefore, is required to be quashed. 6. It is being pleaded by the petitioner No.1 – complainant in the F.I.R, that she has no objection in case the same is quashed along with the criminal proceedings instituted thereupon, in that, same had not been registered as per the real content. The petitioners, thus, seek quashment of the F.I.R because continuance of the proceedings under the said F.I.R before the Court below will be an abuse of the process of law. 7. The instant writ petition came up for consideration on 27-10-2020, whereupon, having regard to the contents of the petition, coupled with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Registrar Judicial on 20-11-2020 for recording of their statements in support of the compromise stated to have been arrived at between them, resolving the issues/disputes amongst them, which had resulted in registration of F.I.R 06/2020 supra. In terms of order dated 27-10-2020, writ petition - WP (C) 1580/2020 supra, filed by petitioner No.1 earlier, was also ordered to be listed along with the instant petition. 8. The statement of the petitioners has been recorded on 24-11-2020 by the Registrar Judicial. 9. Heard learned appearing counsel and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submission in tune with the stand taken in the petition, reiterating the prayer for quashment of the F.I.R in question as also the criminal proceedings instituted thereupon. Learned counsel referred to the judgements of the Apex Court titled as “Gian Singh versus State of Punjab & Another, reported in 2012 0 Supreme (SC) 652” and “Parbatbhai Aahir and others versus State of Gujarat and another, reported in 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 967” 10. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to extract and reproduce hereunder the statement of the petitioner No.1, recorded pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27-10-2020 : “Statement of Revta Devi (petitioner no.1 in CRM (M) No,337/2020) , Age : 34 years ; W/o Sh. Chain Singh R/o Mogla, Tehsil Taryat, District Raiouri, on oath today i.e. 24.11.2020. Chain Singh R/o Mogla, Tehsil Taryat, District Raiouri, on oath today i.e. 24.11.2020. That I Revta Devi W/o Chain Singh R/o Mogla, Tehsil Taryat, District Rajouri (petitioner no.1 in CRM (M) No.337/2020, do hereby deposed before this Hon’ble Court: That I am personally acquainted with Mr. Javid Khan (Petitioner No.2). The petitioner no.2 invited me (deponent) to his home for which the deponent volunteered without any element of fear, coercion or undue influence and accepted the invitation. Petitioner No.2 was owing some money to the deponent. Due to the hot exchange of words the situation turned ugly on the fateful day. That the deponent out of anger approached the Police Station Dharamshala, Tehsil Sunderbani, District Rajouri, however, the deponent never complained of any allegation which would havé volunteered the lodgement of F.I.R. No.6/2020 u/s 420,376, 342 IPC as depicted in the F.I.R. The sections which has been registered are completely contrary to the facts and submissions before the SHO concerned. However, the deponent also deposed before the Court of Munsiff, Sunderbani, in terms of Section 164-A of Cr.P.C. but the said statement was made because of inducement and influence of the SHO concerned who was trying to implicate the petitioner no.2 for the reasons best known to him, That the deponent after making statement had a feeling that she has been made to make a statement against her colleague which is not correct position. The deponent approached this Hon’ble Court for recording of her statement and also filed a petition u/s 482 RPC being CRM (M) No.337/2020 seeking quashment of aforesaid F.I.R. The deponent submits that no offence u/s 420,376, 342 IPC, has been committed against her by the petitioner no.2 and all the allegations are perversed and all allegations leveled against the petitioner no.2 (accused in F.I.R. No.6/2020) are out rightly denied by the deponent. The deponent is making statement before this Hon’ble Court without any force or coercion and out of her own sweet will and as such seeks the quashment of the above mentioned F.I.R.” 11. Reference hereunder, to paragraph 57 of the Apex Court judgement, passed in Gian Sing’s case supra and paragraph 15 of the Apex Court judgement, passed in Parbatbhai Aahir’s case supra, respectively, being relevant and genuine, would be advantageous : “57. Reference hereunder, to paragraph 57 of the Apex Court judgement, passed in Gian Sing’s case supra and paragraph 15 of the Apex Court judgement, passed in Parbatbhai Aahir’s case supra, respectively, being relevant and genuine, would be advantageous : “57. 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” “15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions : (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 12. Having regard to the issue involved in the petition and keeping in mind the judgements of the Apex Court supra, inasmuch as the statement of the petitioners, in particular of petitioner No.1, it transpires that the F.I.R in question had been got registered against the petitioner No.2 by the petitioner No.1 after they (petitioners) got involved in a dispute, predominantly and essentially, having a civil flavour, and in view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners, there is a bleak and remote possibility of conviction of the petitioner No.2 and the continuation of the criminal proceedings, thus, would amount to abuse of process of Court. 13. In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, CRM (M) 337/2020 is allowed along with connected Cr. LM. FIR No. 06/2020 dated 01-02-2020, registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, Sunderbani, Rajouri, U/Ss 420, 376, 342 IPC and consequent criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Munsiff, Sunderbani, Rajouri, are quashed. 13. In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, CRM (M) 337/2020 is allowed along with connected Cr. LM. FIR No. 06/2020 dated 01-02-2020, registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, Sunderbani, Rajouri, U/Ss 420, 376, 342 IPC and consequent criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Munsiff, Sunderbani, Rajouri, are quashed. In view of the above nothing survives for adjudication in writ petition - WP (C) 1580/2020, it is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CMs.