JUDGMENT : 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr. P. C seeking quashment of FIR No. 61 of 2015 dated 13.05.2015, registered at Police Station, Banihal, Ramban for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 109 RPC. 2. The background facts those emerge from case in hand are that on a complaint of petitioner No. 3, the FIR in question is stated to have been registered against the petitioners 1 and 2. The complainant is stated to have alleged commission of offences in question by the petitioners 1 and 2 in connection with the appointment of a Rehbar-a-Taleem, Teacher. The parties are stated to have got the issues resolved amicably and reduced into writing by way of a deed of compromise executed on 31.01.2020. It is being stated that the offences contained in the FIR being non-compoundable are coming in the way of the compromise entered into between the petitioners. Petitioners thus, seek quashment of the FIR in question on the premise that the investigation in the FIR would be an exercise in futility without a conclusive end and that even if the investigation resulted into presentation of a challan and consequent trial before a competent Court same would be sheer wastage of time of the Court. It is being stated that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 428 , Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and another, FIR in question is liable to be quashed. 3. The respondents in response of the petition have filed a status report wherein the accused persons are stated to have committed the offences in question. It is also stated in the status report that it has come to their notice that both the parties have entered into a compromise and presented a deed in this regard before the Court. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 4. It is relevant to notice here that the petitioners 1 and 2 had filed an application for grant of bail in anticipation of their arrest on 10.06.2015, and have been granted bail thereto on 12.06.2015. 5. In terms of order dated 09.06.2020, the instant petition came to be directed to be listed along with the aforesaid bail application. 6. 4. It is relevant to notice here that the petitioners 1 and 2 had filed an application for grant of bail in anticipation of their arrest on 10.06.2015, and have been granted bail thereto on 12.06.2015. 5. In terms of order dated 09.06.2020, the instant petition came to be directed to be listed along with the aforesaid bail application. 6. On 23.02.2021, during the course of proceedings the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of which the FIR in question had arisen and the appearing counsel for the petitioners sought disposal of the instant petition, as such, thereto in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 , Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another and 2017 (9) SCC 641 , Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhal Bhimsinhbhai Karlmur and other vs. State of Gujarat and another. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the same and instead contended that the case is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2020 (3) SCC 736 , Arun Singh and others vs. State of U.P and another. 8. Upon consideration of the matter on 23.02.2021, it came to be observed by this Court that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgments (supra), and not under Arun Singh’s case (supra) being a case under Dowry Prohibition Act and offences against the society, as a consequence whereof for disposal of the instant petition, accordingly, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial of this Court along with their counsel for recording their respective statements in support of the compromise stated to have been executed by them qua the dispute out of which FIR in question had arisen. 9. The statements of all the petitioners have been recorded on 02.03.2021 on oath. 10. The power of High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction has been dealt with and detailed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled as “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another” reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641 . 11. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another” reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641 . 11. In Gian Singh’s supra case at para 61, it has been noticed 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 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 victims 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 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 basical private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basical private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash 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 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.” 12. In “Parbatbhai Aahir’s supra case at Para 16, it has been noticed as under: - “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1 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 recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; 16.2 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. 16.3 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. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3 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. 16.4 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. 16.5 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. 16.6 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. 16.7 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. 16.8 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. 16.9 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 16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. 16.9 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 16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. 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.” 13. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases reported in 2008 (9) SCC 677 , Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, and in Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2018 titled as Smt. Anita Maria Dias and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, has displayed indulgence while questioning proceedings involving commission of offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 etc, 406, 420, 467 etc. 14. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's and Parbatbhai Ashir's cases. (supra) and while having regard to the deed of compromise entered into by the parties, petitioners herein, the FIR admittedly and indisputably had been instituted upon a complaint filed by petitioner No. 3 and keeping in view the respective statements, the instant case stands on a distinct footing then relating to heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences, such as, murder, rape, dacoity, etc. The continuation of investigation or consequential presentation of challan inasmuch as, commencement of trial thereto would put the accused/petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to petitioners 1 and 2, despite having settled the disputes and differences with the petitioner No. 3. Further continuation of investigation thus, covered in FIR in question would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice and in essence would amount to abuse of law. The proceedings being still at initial and nascent stage, as such, require exercise of discretion by putting an end to the same while quashing the FIR in question. 15. Further continuation of investigation thus, covered in FIR in question would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice and in essence would amount to abuse of law. The proceedings being still at initial and nascent stage, as such, require exercise of discretion by putting an end to the same while quashing the FIR in question. 15. Viewed thus, FIR No. 61 of 2015 dated 13.05.2015, registered at Police Station, Banihal, Ramban for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 109 RPC I,s accordingly, quashed. 16. Bail application being BA 52/2015 along with connected IA(s), in view of the above shall also stand, accordingly disposed of.