ORDER 1. Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proceeding, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of accused-petitioners with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings pending against them before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (for short 'the trial Court') in Sessions Case No.12/2021 (State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Karan Pratap Singh & Others) arising out of F.I.R. No.166/2020 registered at Police Station Arai District Ajmer, whereby the trial Court, vide its order dated 16.03.2021, attested the compromise for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 342/34 of I.P.C., but refused to attest the compromise against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 324, 365, 459, 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., as the same are non- compoundable. 2. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that an F.I.R. bearing No.166/2020 has been lodged at Police Station Arai District Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 342, 354 (B), 365 and 458 of I.P.C. Thereafter, Police registered a case against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and started investigation. After a thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 365, 326, 324, 459, 307, 341 and 34 of I.P.C. before the concerned Court. The trial Court framed charges for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and commenced trial. 3. During the pendency of trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as complainant/respondent Nos.2 to 6 stating therein that both the parties have entered into a compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners may be dropped. 4. The trial Court, vide its order dated 16.03.2021, allowed the parties to compound the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 342/34 of I.P.C., however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offences punishable under Sections 365, 307, 326, 459 and 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Hence, the present appeal for quashing the said criminal proceedings pending against them. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners submits that during trial, complainant Sugni (PW-1), injured Prakash (PW-2), Narayan (PW-3) Kishan (PW-4) and Mangal Singh (PW-5), all turned hostile witnesses. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners submits that during trial, complainant Sugni (PW-1), injured Prakash (PW-2), Narayan (PW-3) Kishan (PW-4) and Mangal Singh (PW-5), all turned hostile witnesses. Counsel further submits that as the complainant/respondent Nos.2 to 6 and the petitioners have already entered into a compromise and on the basis of it, the proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 342/34 of I.P.C. have already been dropped against the petitioners, so there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 307, 326, 459 and 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. It is also argued by the learned counsel that since compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, whereas the learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent Nos.2 to 6 has no objection, if the proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 365, 307, 326, 459 and 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., are dropped as the parties have already entered into a compromise. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while answering a reference, in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 426 has held as below:- "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. 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. 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." (Emphasis supplied) 8. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the accused-petitioners and the victim/respondent Nos.2 to 6, there is no possibility of the petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them. Once the dispute has already been settled by way of mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 9. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, in Sessions Case No.12/2021 (State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Karan Pratap Singh & Others) arising out of F.I.R. No.166/2020 registered at Police Station Arai District Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 365, 307, 326, 459 and 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. are hereby quashed.