JUDGMENT : O.P No. 2 is wife of the petitioner. Prakash Thakur is her father-in-law who died during pendency of this case and vide order dated 10th June 2022 present criminal revision petition qua Prakash Thakur was dismissed as not pressed. 2. On the basis of a First Information Report lodged by her on 18th July 2011 making an allegation against the accused persons of demanding Rs.50,000/-and a motorcycle, the investigation in the case was conducted. The accused persons faced the trial on the charge under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove the aforesaid charges against the accused persons, who also tendered defence evidence by producing three witnesses. By judgment dated 7th August 2013 in T.R No. 259 of 2013 arising out of G.R No. 2256 of 2011 corresponding to Dhanbad PS Case No. 562 of 2011, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo SI for 6 months. 3. The Judgment in T.R No. 259 of 2013 came to be challenged by the petitioner and his father (since dead) in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2013 which was dismissed by a judgment delivered on 16th December 2014. 4. This criminal revision petition challenging the aforesaid judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2013 was admitted for hearing by this Court on 25th February 2015. 5. On that day, the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail by furnishing bail-bond of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties of the like amount. 6. Thereafter this criminal revision petition was listed on 2nd May 2022 when the following order was passed by this Court: “No one appears for the petitioners on second call. The State is represented through Mr. Saket Kumar, the learned APP. The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to R.I for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-each under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. By an order dated 25th February 2015 the petitioners were directed to be enlarged on bail. In the aforesaid circumstances, reserving a liberty with the petitioners for engaging a counsel of their choice, Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned counsel is appointed as Amicus in this matter. By an order dated 25th February 2015 the petitioners were directed to be enlarged on bail. In the aforesaid circumstances, reserving a liberty with the petitioners for engaging a counsel of their choice, Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned counsel is appointed as Amicus in this matter. Registry shall provide complete set of paper-book alongwith all the necessary documents to the learned Amicus within one week. Post the matter on 13th May 2022 under the heading for “Orders”.” 7. On the next date of hearing, the learned counsels appearing for the parties apprised the Court that there has been an amicable settlement between the parties – father of the petitioner had died in the meantime. 8. In support of the aforesaid statements made by the learned counsels for the parties, a joint compromise petition dated 9th May 2022 has been placed on record. This joint compromise petition has been signed by petitioner and O.P No.2 and they have filed their separate affidavits in support of the joint compromise petition. 9. Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned Amicus refers to the judgment in “Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.” (2012) 10 SCC 303 to submit that powers under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is different and distinct from powers of the Court to quash a complaint or even conviction recorded for an offence which is not compoundable. 10. The learned Amicus referred to paragraph no. 61 in “Gian Singh” wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “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. 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. 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 pre-dominatingly 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.” 11. Mr. Mr. Haider Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment in “Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand & Another” 2022 (1) RLW 139 to lay support to the submission that now since the parties have sorted out their differences and O.P No.2 is residing in her matrimonial home in the company of her husband the conviction recorded against the petitioner in T.R No. 259 of 2013 which was affirmed by the appellate Court may be set-aside by this Court. 12. In “Rajendra Bhagat” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : “10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and taking note of the terms of settlement as stated in the application moved before the High Court which include the undertaking of the appellant that he would be nominating the respondent No.2 as the nominee in his service record; and where the parties are said to be leading a happy conjugal life, we are clearly of the view that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and quashed all the proceedings with annulment of the orders against the appellant. The High Court having not done so, we are inclined to adopt this course so as to secure the ends of justice.” 13. The learned counsel for O.P No.2 also supports the compromise petition and the plea urged on behalf of the petitioner. 14. In view of the judgments in “Gian Singh” and “Rajendra Bhagat” this Court is of the opinion that conviction of the petitioner which would certainly have stigmatic effect on him needs to be interfered with. 15. Accordingly, the judgment dated 16th December 2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2013 against the petitioner passed by the appellate Court is set-aside and, consequently, the judgment of conviction under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence of RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, both dated 7th August 2013, in T.R No. 259 of 2013 arising out of G.R No. 2256 of 2011 corresponding to Dhanbad PS Case No. 562 of 2011 against the petitioner passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad are set-aside. 16. The petitioner is discharged of the liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him in T.R No. 259 of 2013 arising out of G.R No. 2256 of 2011 corresponding to Dhanbad PS Case No. 562 of 2011. 17. 16. The petitioner is discharged of the liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him in T.R No. 259 of 2013 arising out of G.R No. 2256 of 2011 corresponding to Dhanbad PS Case No. 562 of 2011. 17. Criminal Revision No.54 of 2015 is allowed. 18. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned Amicus. 19. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned, forthwith.