ORDER : Mukesh Rajpurohit, J. 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C . (Section 528 of BNSS) on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the entire proceeding pending against them arising out of FIR No.45/2015 registered at Police Station Chopasani Housing Board, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 326 & 307 of the IPC, on the ground of compromise. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute in this matter is inter-se between the parties which does not affect the societal interest or anyway disturb the tranquility or public peace. It is further submitted that both the parties have settled their disputes through amicable settlement, for which a compromise-deed has been executed. 3. It is also submitted that It is also submitted that upon the aforementioned compromise, the learned Court below vide order dated 08.01.2025, has verified the compromise between the parties to the extent of the offences under Sections 323 & 341 of IPC. However, the learned Court below has declined to verify the compromise with regard to the offences under Sections 326 & 307 of IPC on the ground that the said offences are non- compoundable. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have entered into compromise, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. : Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent No.2 admits the fact of compromise and submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, nature of allegation and the order of the learned trial Court. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. 8. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, nature of allegation and the order of the learned trial Court. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. 8. Some of the offences alleged in this matter are non- compoundable, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. 9. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) has laid down certain principles through which the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C ., shall be guided by established principles to either accept a settlement and quash the proceedings or reject the settlement and direct the continuation of criminal proceedings: “31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: (I) to (V)….. (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.” 10. This Court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and feels that where the dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides, to end- up the dispute in between them permanently as well as for restitution of relationship, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated thereto. 11. 11. Here in this case, though some of the offences are not compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably, the complainant-respondent No.2 do not wish to continue the proceedings against the petitioner and, that is essentially in between the parties, which is not affecting public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and the entire proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof. 12. Accordingly the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.45/2015 registered at Police Station Chopasani Housing Board, District Jodhpur and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 13. The accused petitioner is acquitted from the charges and if they are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged. 14. The stay petition is disposed of.