JUDGMENT : Javed Iqbal Wani, J. 1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 CrPC is being invoked by the petitioner for quashment of FIR No. 21 of 2016 registered at Women's Police Station, Srinagar. 2. The background facts, those stem out from the petition, according to the petitioners, are that the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 5 were married to each other in 2011. The petitioners 2, 3, and 4 are respectively father, mother and sister of the petitioner no. 1. The matrimonial life of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 5 ran into rough weather and their relationship deteriorated after each passing day, which led to filing of complaints by petitioner No. 5 against petitioner No. 1 including a complaint under "Prevention of Women Domestic Violence Act" and an application for maintenance under section 488 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner No. 5 is also stated to have filed a complaint against petitioners 1 to 4 in the Women's Police Station Srinagar, which resulted into registration of FIR against petitioners 1 to 4 for commission of offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 354 of RPC. 3. The Women's Police Station Srinagar is stated to have filed a challan titled 'State versus Inayat-ud-din Rangrez and others', arising out of the FIR in question against petitioners 1 to 4, being File No. 441 of 2016. 4. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said proceedings, the community elders intervened in the matter and the parties were encouraged to settle the matter amicably so that they could lead a peaceful life. It is submitted that with the intervention of well-wishers, a compromise came to be arrived at between petitioners 1 and 5 and parties agreed to withdraw all the cases against each other. It is further submitted that based on said understanding, the petitioners withdrew all the cases except the proceedings tilled 'State Vs. Inayat-ud-din Rangrez and Ors.' pending disposal in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, City Judge, It is submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, City Judge, Srinagar has expressed inability to dismiss aforesaid proceedings as the offence punishable under section 498-A being not compoundable. 5. Inayat-ud-din Rangrez and Ors.' pending disposal in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, City Judge, It is submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, City Judge, Srinagar has expressed inability to dismiss aforesaid proceedings as the offence punishable under section 498-A being not compoundable. 5. It is submitted the dispute between the parties, which has resulted in registration of FIR and filling of Challan against petitioners 1 to 4, being matrimonial in character, quashing of proceedings would advance the cause of justice and secure ends of justice. It is submitted that the parties with the intervention of community elders and help of well-wishers have already resolved the dispute and want to give quietus to the dispute and the parties shall live in peace only if all proceedings are withdrawn. 6. It is submitted that challan presented against petitioners, under the present circumstances, is unlikely to result in conviction. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioners when the complainant has already compromised with the petitioners would be per se oppressive. It is submitted that the present case falls within the parameters set by the Supreme Court where proceedings should be quashed consequent upon parties reaching to a settlement. 7. The instant petition came up for consideration on 8.9.2021, on which date the learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to produce the petitioners before the court. On 09.9.2021, the parties appeared in person and were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial of this court for recording their statements in support of compromise claimed to have entered into between them for resolving their dispute and differences. 8. Heard learned appearing counsel and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 proceedings initiated 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 statements of the parties recorded pursuant to the order of this Court dated 09-09-2021: Statement on oath of Petitioner No. 1 Inayat-ud-Din Rangrez S/o Rafiq-ud-Din Rangrez R/o Wanbal Rawalpora, dated 09.09.2021. 10. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to extract and reproduce hereunder the statements of the parties recorded pursuant to the order of this Court dated 09-09-2021: Statement on oath of Petitioner No. 1 Inayat-ud-Din Rangrez S/o Rafiq-ud-Din Rangrez R/o Wanbal Rawalpora, dated 09.09.2021. Deposed that he has compromised with petitioner No. 5 Sania Khan aged 40 years D/o Azam Khan R/o Kounsar Colony, Wanabal, Rawalpora, Srinagar and settled all the disputes that existed between him and petitioner no. 5. Further stated that it has been agreed between the parties that all the litigations filed against each other shall be withdrawn. He has no grievance against the petitioner no. 5 The compromise so made has been reduced in writing and bears my signature. Statement on oath of Petitioner No. 2 Rafiq-ud-Din Rangrez S/o Noor-ud-Din Rangrez R/o Wanbal, Rawalpora, dated 09.09.2021. Deposed that petitioner no. 1 had some differences with the petitioner no. 5 which had prompted the petitioner no. 5 and petitioner no. 1 to file litigations against each other and also against relatives of petitioner no. 1. Now the parties have compromised with each other and settled the disputes. Further stated that it has been agreed between the parties that all the litigations filed between petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 5 against each other shall be withdrawn by them. Statement on oath of Petitioner No. 3 Hafeeza Begum Age 62 years W/o Rafiquddin Rangrez R/o Wanbal, Rawalpora, dated 09.09.2021. Deposed that petitioner no. 1 had some differences with the petitioner no. 5 which had prompted the petitioner no. 5 and petitioner no. 1 to file litigations against each other and also against relatives of petitioner no. 1. Now the parties have compromised with each other and settled the disputes. Further stated that it has been agreed between the parties that all the litigations filed between petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 5 against each other shall be withdrawn by them. Statement on oath of Petitioner No. 4 Ishrat Fayaz Kirman Age 38 years W/o Fayaz Ahmad Kirman R/o Deewanbagh, Baramulla, dated 09.09.2021. Deposed that petitioner no. 1 had some differences with the petitioner no. 5 which had prompted the petitioner no. 5 and petitioner no. 1 to file litigations against each other and also against relatives of petitioner no. 1. Now the parties have compromised with each other and settled the disputes. Deposed that petitioner no. 1 had some differences with the petitioner no. 5 which had prompted the petitioner no. 5 and petitioner no. 1 to file litigations against each other and also against relatives of petitioner no. 1. Now the parties have compromised with each other and settled the disputes. Further stated that it has been agreed between the parties that all the litigations filed between petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 5 against each other shall be withdrawn by them. Statement on oath of Petitioner No. 5 Sania Khan aged 35 years D/o Azam Khan R/o Kounsar Colony Wanbal, Rawalpora, dated 09.09.2021. Deposed that she has compromised with petitioner No.1_lnayat-ud-Din Rangrez Sb Rafiq-ud- Din Rangrez R/o Wanbal Rawalpora and settled all the disputes that existed between her and petitioner no. 1. Further stated that it has been agreed between the parties that all the litigations filed by me against the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 shall be withdrawn. She has no grievance against the petitioners 1 to 4 and seeks quashment of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners 1 to 4. The compromise so made has been reduced in writing and bears my signature. 11. A reference hereunder, to paragraph 57 of the Apex Court judgement, passed in Gian Singh's case supra and paragraph 15 of the Apex Court judgement, passed in Parbatbhai Aahir's case supra, respectively, being relevant and genuine herein, 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. 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. 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. 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; (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. 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. 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) (x) 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 (xi) 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 statements of the parties particularly the statement of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 5, it transpires that the F.I.R in question had been got registered against the petitioner No. 1 by petitioner No. 5 after they got involved in a dispute, predominantly and essentially, having a civil flavour, and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is a bleak and remote possibility of conviction and the continuation of the criminal proceedings, thus, would amount to abuse of process of Court. 13. 13. In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, CRM (M) 262/2021 is allowed along with connected CrlM, and the FIR No. 21 of 2016 registered at Women's Police Station, Srinagar, and consequent criminal proceedings pending before the Court of City Judge/JMIC, Srinagar are quashed.