JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR No. 23 of 2021, dated 04.08.2021, registered at Women Police Station, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties. 2. Precisely the case of the petitioners, as emerge from the record are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1-Ramit Anand Sharma on 04.02.2014, but immediately after marriage, her husband alongwith other family members started harassing her on account of bringing less dowry. Complainant further alleged that her husband alongwith other family members not only abused her but also gave beatings. Since petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were unable to live together for long, respondent No.2 was compelled to live separately with her parents. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted against petitioners, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2. Though after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise and resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them amicably. In the aforesaid background, petitioners-accused have approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law. 3. Though pursuant to order dated 25.05.2023, respondent-State has not filed the status report but respondent No.2 has also come present in Court and is duly represented by Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate. She states on oath that she of her own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate. She states on oath that she of her own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them. She further states that she alongwith her husband i.e. petitioner No.1 has filed joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent in the competent Court of Law coupled with the fact that petitioners have apologized for their misbehavior and undertaken not to repeat such act in future, as such she shall have no objection in case FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed under Section 498-A against them. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signature thereupon. 4. Having heard the statement made on oath by respondent No.2- complainant, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings are allowed to sustain. He fairly states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioner are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant, as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners are acquitted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have decided to get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent in terms of compromise arrived inter se the parties. Petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay Rs. 22,00,000/- as permanent alimony to respondent No.2, out of which Rs.10,00,000/- was paid at the time of first motion before learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Family Court) Hamipur, and Rs. 6,00,000/- has been paid today by way of demand draft to learned counsel representing respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions states that Rs.6,00,000/- shall be paid positively at the time of 2nd motion. 6. 6,00,000/- has been paid today by way of demand draft to learned counsel representing respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions states that Rs.6,00,000/- shall be paid positively at the time of 2nd motion. 6. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 7. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences. 8. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. 11. In the case at hand, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are petty in nature and further the parties have entered into compromise with each other. 11. In the case at hand, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are petty in nature and further the parties have entered into compromise with each other. Since respondent No.2 is no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of accused and no fruitful purpose shall be achieved by continuing with criminal prosecution of the petitioners as such, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioners for quashing of FIR. 12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 23 of 2021, dated 04.08.2021, registered at Women Police Station, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 13. Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to cause the presence of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 before learned Additional District & Sessions Judge(Family Court), Hamirpur, on 03.06.2023 enabling him to proceed further in a petition filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 14. Before parting this Court may observe that this court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court in Catena of judgment have repeatedly held that “cooling period” of six months can be waived in the cases where marriage has broken irreparably and there is no possibility of rapprochement. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment rendered by this Court in Bharti Kapoor v. Des Raj, CMPMO No. 271 of 2017, decided on 31.10.2018. 15. In the case at hand, parties have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and in that regard they have already approached the competent court of law under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Since parties have already acted upon the compromise, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Family Court) may waive off ‘cooling period’ and pass appropriate order after recording the statement of second motion on the date fixed by this Court. 16. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.