JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral). - The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioners-Arun Kumar, Sarita Digwa and Sohrab Sharma, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3) arrived at between them and respondent No.4- Dr. Ragini Bhardwaj, for quashing of FIR No.84 of 2018 dated 16.04.2018, registered in Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506, 377 and 354A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Case No.97 of 2019, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sohrab Sharma and others and criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.l, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. Arun Kumar, Sarita Digwa and Sohrab Sharma-petitioners are present in person in the Court today, who have been identified by their respective learned counsel. Separate statements of petitioners-Arun Kumar, Sarita Digwa and Sohrab Sharma and respondent No. 4-Dr. Ragini Bhardwaj, on oath, have also been recorded today in the Court. 3. In her statement, complainant-respondent No.4-Dr. Ragini Bhardwaj, has stated that she is complainant in present case and she was married to Dr. Sohrab Sharma on 24.02.2016. She has further stated that because of differences of opinion, their relations became strained, which led to registration of FIR No.84 of 2018 dated 16.04.2018, in Police Station Paonta Sahib, against the petitioners by her. Ragini Bhardwaj, has stated that she is complainant in present case and she was married to Dr. Sohrab Sharma on 24.02.2016. She has further stated that because of differences of opinion, their relations became strained, which led to registration of FIR No.84 of 2018 dated 16.04.2018, in Police Station Paonta Sahib, against the petitioners by her. She has further stated that petitioner No.2-Sarita Digwa had also registered an FIR No.107 of 2018 in Police Station, Narayangarh (Haryana) against her father and other relatives and ultimately, they have decided to buy peace by ending relations with each other and resultantly they have entered into a compromise and in pursuant thereto a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been filed for dissolution of marriage on the basis of mutual consent before Principal Judge Family Court, Ambala, District Ambala, Haryana and as per compromise, petitioners have agreed to pay to her as lump sum payment of ?13,00,000/- towards the past, present and future maintenance and out of that a sum of ?6,50,000/- though, has been paid to her at the time of filing of petition for mutual divorce and remaining amount i.e. ?6,50,000/- has been agreed to be paid by the petitioners at the time of second motion in the petition filed for dissolution of marriage on the basis of mutual consent, but petitioners have offered payment thereof today itself vide Demand Draft No. 897233 dated 04.12.2020 to be drawn at State Bank of India worth ?6,50,000/- and she has accepted the same today itself and the same has been handed over to her and photocopy thereof has also been placed on record of the case file. 4. She has further stated that in terms of compromise, petitioner No.2-Sarita Digwa has also agreed to withdraw FIR No. 107 of 2018 registered against her father and others and to that extent she has already made the statement in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narayangarh (Haryana). She has further stated that she has also filed a complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and has also decided to close the said proceedings in terms of compromise and parties have agreed to close any other matter or litigation or action taken and proposed to be taken against each other. She has further stated that photocopy of compromise has also been placed on record alongwith petition which has been signed by her and petitioners in presence of witnesses and the same has also been notarized at Ambala. She has further stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for compromise entered between them, she sought permission to withdraw the complaint filed by her and she has prayed for quashing of FIR as well as criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in consequence thereto. Lastly, she has stated that she has signed the compromise and deposed in this Court, out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. 5. In his statement, Dr.Sohrab Sharma-petitioner No.3 has endorsed the statement made by Dr.Ragini Bhardwaj-respondent No. 4, recorded on oath today in this Court in presence of petitioners including him to be true and correct. He has further stated that they have entered into compromise and he has signed the same voluntarily and his deposition in this Court is out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. 6. Also in their statements petitioners No.l and 2-Arun Kumar and Sarita Digwa have endorsed the statement made by respondent No.4-Dr. Ragini Digwa to be true and correct. They have further stated that they have entered into compromise without any pressure and have signed the same voluntarily and their deposition in this Court is out of their free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. 7. It is contended on behalf of the respondent-State that petitioners 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. 8. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 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.PC, 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.PC 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. 9. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the board principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 10. 9. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the board principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 10. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688 has summed 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. 11. No doubt Section 498A and 377 of IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbhatbhai Aahir's case and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, if 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. 12. Now, the matter has been amicably settled and marriage has been dissolved with mutual consent and as per settlement, petitioner No.3 and respondent No.4 are living their independent lives happily. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the proceedings against the petitioners. 13. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied. 14. 14. 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.15. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No.84 of 2018 dated 16.04.2018, registered in Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings in Case No.97 of 2019, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sohrab Sharma and others, pending in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.l, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., are also quashed. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Copy Dasti on usual terms.