ORDER : By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made to dispose of the Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2015 titled as Vipin Kumar vs. State of H.P. on the basis of compromise between the parties. The compromise deed has been placed on record. 2. FIR No. 25 of 2010 dated 15.02.2010 came to be registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging inter-alia that petitioner while driving bus No. HP-68-1502, rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle ridden by respondent No.2 and thereby caused grievous injuries to him. 3. After investigation, challan was presented. Petitioner was tried and convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced as under:- Sr. No. Offence Substantive sentence Fine 1. 279 S.I. three months. 500/- 2. 337 S.I. three months 500/- 3. 338 Six months 500/- 4. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed, hence, the petitioner has assailed his above said conviction and sentence in Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2015 before this Court. 5. It is averred that petitioner and respondent No.2 are known to each other. Petitioner helped respondent No.2 in getting the medical treatment immediately after the accident, attended upon him and provided all possible assistance in his treatment. Petitioner has shown sincere remorse for his fault. Petitioner is a Government servant and is Driver by profession. The conviction standing against him shall bring his entire family on roads as he is sole bread earner. 6. On the aforesaid considerations, the matter is stated to have been amicably settled between the parties. A deed of compromise has also been placed on record. 7. Statements of parties were recorded on 25.04.2022. The parties endorsed the contents of compromise deed to be correct and recorded on the basis of their free volition. Respondent No.2 has specifically stated that the factor which led to compromise between the parties was sincere remorse shown by the petitioner as also the help rendered by him to respondent No.2 during the period of his suffering on account of accident in question. 8. The compromise between the parties does not appear to be unlawful. Respondent No.2 has specifically stated that the factor which led to compromise between the parties was sincere remorse shown by the petitioner as also the help rendered by him to respondent No.2 during the period of his suffering on account of accident in question. 8. The compromise between the parties does not appear to be unlawful. It is stated to have been effected on the basis of sincere remorse shown by the petitioner towards respondent No.2 and also the help rendered by him to respondent No.2 during the period of his medical treatment. The administration of criminal justice system, though, require the guilty to be punished but such system, above all, need to serve the interest of justice. The end goal of every system administering justice is to secure peace and harmony in the society, modes may be different. In Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 titled as Ramgopal & Another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 29.09.2021, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. 13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and Laxmi Narayan (Supra). 14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.” 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid exposition of law, the conviction of petitioner by learned trial Court and dismissal of his appeal by the Appellate Court will not be an impediment in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court. The offences involved in the case are non-heinous. The incident involved two vehicles one being driven by the petitioner and another by respondent No.2. The conduct of petitioner, after the accident, was remorseful as admitted by respondent No.2. The petitioner did his best to provide assistance and help to respondent No.2 during the period of his medical treatment. Respondent No.2 has specifically stated on oath that the factor which prompted him to enter into a compromise with petitioner was his sincere remorseful conduct and help rendered by him during the hour of need. The offences involved in the case does not involved moral turpitude and as such have no harmful effect on the society or its moral fabric. 10. The offences involved in the case does not involved moral turpitude and as such have no harmful effect on the society or its moral fabric. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds this to be a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. All proceedings emanating from FIR No. 25 of 2010, dated 15.02.2010 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC registered at Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. are ordered to be quashed. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 131 of 2015 titled as Vipin Kumar vs. State of H.P. is also disposed of accordingly.