ORDER 1. Defect/s pointed out by the Office is ignored. 2. Application (IA No.1/2022) stands disposed of. 3. Applicant Sunita Saini and her husband Rajkumar Saini have filed this application for recall of order dated 05.07.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5428/2022, whereby, on the basis of compromise between the parties, the FIR No.98/2015 registered with Samod Police Station, Jaipur Rural was quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the accused of the case was declared elected in the Panchayat Election, wherein, the accused had produced forged documents of his educational qualification at the time of election. One of the applicants was a candidate in the said election. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an Election Petition was filed against the accused and that petition is still pending for adjudication. In the meantime, the informant of the FIR entered into a compromise with the accused person and a compromise petition was filed before the court below. The court below accepted compounding of only compoundable offences whereas, refused to compound the non-compoundable offences. Moreover, the compromise was entered into at the stage of prosecution evidence. 6. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 , a Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain parameters for consideration of prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceeding of cases involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 7. In para 61 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "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. 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 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. 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 8. Thus, it is evident that inherent power of High Court is not controlled by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. which relates to schedule of the offences which are compoundable. 9. Moreover, the Court has categorically mentioned that heinous and serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be wittingly quashed, though the victim family and offenders have settled the dispute. 10. The present offence has no such ramification of being heinous offence. Moreover, the applicants being not even witnesses before Police during investigation of the case or at the stage of trial, the applicants have got no concern to challenge the compromise between the parties. 11. Learned counsel for the applicants have relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI Vs. Maninder Singh reported in 2015(2) WLC (SC) 571, and State of Maharashtra Through CBI Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and Others reported in 2015(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 92, which are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of the judgment of a Larger Bench of Three Judges in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra). 12. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed as devoid of merit.