JUDGMENT SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE, J. - Heard fnally with consent at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of F.I.R. lodged by his wife i.e. present respondent No. 2 Anita d/o Machindra Mote @ Anita w/o Avinash Patil in Crime No. I-23/2014 registered with Newasa Police Station for the offences under Ss. 419, 420, 493, 465, 466, 468, 406, 471 of Indian Penal Code alongwith the criminal proceedings arising out of it bearing R.C.C. No. 121/2017 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, on the ground that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement. 3. Sum and substance of the aforesaid F.I.R. is that, the petitioner Avinash Shankar Patil @ Sanjay Shankar Patil Sagle, resident of Dodi, Taluka Sinnar, District Nashik and also resident of Newasa, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar despite having married with one Jyoti, resident of Nashik, again published advertisement in a newspaper for searching bride for himself. Pursuant to that advertisement, respondent No.2 - informant when contacted with the petitioner, he told her that he was drawing salary of Rs.50,000.00 per month being an Engineer. The petitioner also won trust of the informant and her relatives by preparing false and fabricated documents in the name of Avinash Shankar Patil and consequently got married with respondent No. 2. Thereafter out of the said trust the petitioner obtained huge amount of Rs.7,50,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand) and 10 Tolas of gold ornaments from the informant as well as her relatives and thereafter cheated them by refusing to return those ornaments and cash amount. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have now settled the dispute between them with the help of well-wishers, family members and friends and decided to give full stop to the dispute permanently. Learned Counsel for the parties further submitted that as per the terms of compromise fled by the petitioner and respondent No. 2, it has been agreed that respondent No. 2 - informant has given up all her claims over the movable and immovable properties owned by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are having one daughter namely Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi who would reside with respondent No. 2 only in future. Further, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are having one daughter namely Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi who would reside with respondent No. 2 only in future. It has also been agreed that the amount of sale proceeds of land Gut No.156/2/C admeasuring 21 gunthas situated at Newasa Khurd would be equally distributed between petitioner and respondent No. 2 and the share of respondent No. 2 would be given to the said daughter Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi and the said amount would be deposited in any Nationalized Bank by way of fxed deposit till the daughter Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi attains majority. It has also agreed upon that the daughter Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi would be entitled to receive periodical interest in on such fxed deposit amount from time to time in order to meet the expenses towards her maintenance and education. 5. Though the aforesaid arrangement of sale proceeds is accepted under the compromise terms dtd. 29/4/2022, but the petitioner in another Criminal Writ Petition No.539 of 2022 fled by the present respondent No.2 against him for quashing another F.I.R. bearing Crime No.71/2014 lodged by the petitioner himself in Newasa Police Station under Ss. 307, 120-B of I.P.C. read with Sec. 3/25 of the Arims Act, had already fled additional reply affdavit being respondent No. 1 in that petition and thereby agreed that the amount of sale proceeds which may be receivable upon the sale of aforesaid land Gut No. 156/2/C falling to his share would also be given to his daughter Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi which would be kept in fxed deposit as agreed aforesaid. Thus, fnally it has been agreed upon by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 that the entire amount of sale proceeds of the aforesaid land would be kept in fxed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in the name of their daughter Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi till she attains majority, with liberty to receive periodical interest on the said amount from time to time for her maintenance. 6. On further perusal of the compromise terms, it has been agreed by respondent No. 2 that she will not claim any alimony from the petitioner towards her maintenance as she has willingly given up such claim forever, since she is earning lady being a practicing lawyer. 7. 6. On further perusal of the compromise terms, it has been agreed by respondent No. 2 that she will not claim any alimony from the petitioner towards her maintenance as she has willingly given up such claim forever, since she is earning lady being a practicing lawyer. 7. It would not be out of place to mention here that the present respondent No.2 has already withdrawn other Criminal Writ Petition No. 539 of 2022 fled by her for quashing Crime No. 71/2014 as mentioned above, since the Investigating Offcer in that crime has already fled "A' Summary before the concerned Magistrate. 8. We have also heard learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 - State. 9. We have carefully gone through the contents of terms of compromise fled by the petitioner and respondent No.2 dtd. 29/4/2022 and the same bears signatures of both of them. Further, we have also gone through the additional reply affdavit dtd. 12/4/2022 of the present petitioner fled in another Criminal Writ Petition 539 of 2022, wherein he has agreed to give his share to his daughter Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi. Thus, it appears that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and care has also been taken to secure the future of their daughter Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi by keeping the sale proceeds of the aforesaid land in her name which may be receivable on the actual sale of that land, till she attains majority. Further, an arrangement for meeting with the expenses of education of daughter Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi is also made by allowing her to withdraw the periodical interest on the said fxed deposit amount from time to time. Moreover, it also appears that respondent No. 2 - informant is a practicing lawyer and capable of earning livelihood on her own, and therefore, waiver of future maintenance from the petitioner by her appears quite reasonable. Further, by way of abundant caution we had directed the learned Registrar (Judicial) under order dtd. 29/4/2022 in the instant petition to verify the contents of the compromise dtd. 29/4/2022 and to see whether it was entered into voluntarily by the parties. Learned Registrar (Judicial), on the same day, submitted his report mentioning that the parties have arrived at settlement voluntarily. 10. 29/4/2022 in the instant petition to verify the contents of the compromise dtd. 29/4/2022 and to see whether it was entered into voluntarily by the parties. Learned Registrar (Judicial), on the same day, submitted his report mentioning that the parties have arrived at settlement voluntarily. 10. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court in para 48 has quoted para 21 of the judgment of the fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769. The fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, has framed the guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement. Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh is reproduced by the Supreme Court in para 48 of the judgment in Gian Singh. Clause 21(a) which is relevant for the present discussion reads as under : "21. ..... (a) Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case." 11. In para No.61 of the case Gian Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:- "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 Sec. 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. : (1) 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. 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 fttingly 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 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 favour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, fnancial, 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 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 question(s) is in the affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 12. In view of the above and further going through the contents of terms of compromise in the instant petition as well as additional reply affdavit of the petitioner dtd. In view of the above and further going through the contents of terms of compromise in the instant petition as well as additional reply affdavit of the petitioner dtd. 12/4/2022 in another Criminal Writ Petition No. 539 of 2022, we are satisfed that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement voluntarily. 13. Further, it appears from the copy of HMP No. 10/2022 fled by the petitioner in the instant petition at page No.458 as Exhibit-D, that the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 have fled the aforesaid marriage petition in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Newasa for obtaining decree of divorce by mutual consent as per Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said petition, it has been mentioned that respondent No.2 has already changed her name in the Maharashtra Government Gazette No. M-1711741 to Utkarsh Machindra Mote and the said name is mentioned in the guardianship of Priyadarshani @ Dhruvi. So also the name of daughter of petitioner and respondent No.2 has also been changed in the Maharashtra Government Gazette as Dhruvi Utkarsh Mote vide M1729364. In view of the above, we fnd it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to keep the amount of sale proceeds which may be receivable on the actual sale of land Gut No. 156/2 C in the new name of their daughter Priyadarshani which is now changed to Dhruvi Utkarsh Mote. 14. Considering the above facts and in terms of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-cited case, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Writ Petition No. 418 of 2022 is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). (ii) Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.