ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:- “3.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly call entire records pertaining to the Criminal Appeal no. 60/2022 between Anand Pathak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh pending before the learned IIIrd. Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, [CG]. 3.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner so also his conviction by the Court of Ld. J.M.F.C. Bilaspur (C.G.) in criminal case no 1701/2015 State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Anand Pathak in view of the mutual understanding and compromise between the petitioner and complainant. 3.3 That, Any other relief /order, which this Hon'ble Court may found deem fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.” 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Section 320(2) of the CrPC for compounding the offence punishable under Section 435 of the IPC has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that the FIR was lodged by respondent No.1 against the petitioner on 07.05.2015 to the effect the present petitioner set fire to 10 numbers of Balli, 100 numbers of bamboo and 4 numbers of a wooden door with matches by pouring kerosene. On such report, the police registered an FIR against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and investigated the matter. After the completion of the investigation, the police filed the final report before the competent Court. 4. The learned trial Court vide order dated 23.03.2022 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo further R.I. for 6 months. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner and respondent No.1/complainant moved an application u/s 320(2) of the CrPC for compounding the offence. The petitioner and respondent No.1 have resolved their dispute and there is a cordial relationship between them. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner and respondent No.1/complainant moved an application u/s 320(2) of the CrPC for compounding the offence. The petitioner and respondent No.1 have resolved their dispute and there is a cordial relationship between them. The learned Court below vide order dated 04.09.2023 rejected the application on the ground that Section 435 of the IPC is not a compoundable offence thereafter; the present petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court, the petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction before the Appellate Court wherein application u/s. 320 (2) for compounding the offence was preferred, however, the same was rejected. He would further submit that in the present petition, the parties have appeared before this Court and recorded their submission before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) where respondent No.1/complainant has stated that she does not wish to pursue the criminal case against the petitioner furthermore, and she has no objection, if the petition is allowed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. He emphasis that even at the belated stage, the application for compromise can be allowed by the High Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC even for the non-compoundable offence. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the matters of Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011 decided on 25.10.2021 and 'Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 834'. 7. Learned State counsel would not oppose the above contention. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant would pray that the petition may be allowed and the criminal proceedings pertaining to the petitioner may be quashed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramawatar (supra) has held in para 10, 11, 13 as under:- “10. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant would pray that the petition may be allowed and the criminal proceedings pertaining to the petitioner may be quashed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramawatar (supra) has held in para 10, 11, 13 as under:- “10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012, wherein, a two judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers. 11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post conviction, the Courts should, inter-alia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held: “19… Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” [Emphasis Applied] 13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in postconviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sinequanon to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).” 11. In the matter Ramgopal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate stage. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post-conviction, the Courts should, inter alia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question and in para-20 held as under:- “20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that: Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature; Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest; Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed; Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s); Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties; Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive any ill-will and have no vengeance against each other; and Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain uneffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present age.” 12. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that the incident took place in the year 2015. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the IPC with fine and default stipulation. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties have settled their dispute amicably, moved an application for compromise which was rejected by the learned Court below. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties have settled their dispute amicably, moved an application for compromise which was rejected by the learned Court below. Afterwards, the present petition has been filed and during the course of hearing, the parties were directed to remain present before this Court and pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2023, the petitioner and respondent No.1 appeared before the Additional Registrar (Judicial), where they categorically stated that they have settled the dispute and arrived at a settlement without any coercion, greed, or pressure. 13. Taking into consideration facts of the present case in the light of the principle of law rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ramawatar (supra) and Ramgopal (supra), it is quite vivid that the incident was taken place in the year 2015; parties are living in the same locality; dispute between the parties prima-facie appears to be personal in nature and do not override public interest and further considering the fact that both the parties have settled their dispute which is evident from the statements dated 25.09.2023 recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, I feel inclined to allow this petition. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner as well as his conviction recorded by the learned J.M.F.C., Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 1701 of 2015 parties being ‘State of Chhattisgarh v. Anand Pathak’ are hereby quashed. 14. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.