ORDER : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR No. 91/2006 registered on 18.09.2006 at Police Station Ropangarh, District Ajmer for offences punishable u/S 147, 365, 342, 323 & 427 IPC and all consequential proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant submit that a compromise has arrived at between the parties and they have submitted an application before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kishangarh on 28.01.2025 to attest the compromise. However, the learned trial Court attested the compromise as regards the offences u/S 342, 323, 325, 427 IPC and rejected the same as regards the offence u/S 147 & 324 IPC observing that the trial is pending. 3. Heard. 4. The parties, after removing their bad blood, have entered into a compromise and they have submitted an application before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kishangarh on 28.01.2025 to attest the compromise, wherein the complainant party has stated that they do not want any further proceedings in the matter. 5. The learned trial Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 attested the compromise as regards the offence u/S 342, 323, 325, 427 IPC, however, denied to attest the compromise for the offence u/S 147 & 324 IPC as the same is not compoundable. 6. A bare perusal of the material on record shows that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled by them. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed as follows:- “57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014 AIR SCW 2065) has observed as follows:- "21. However, we have some other cases decided by this Court commenting upon the nature of offence under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case AIR 2013 SC 518) (supra), FIR was lodged under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 552 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and final report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At that stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The court accepted the settlement and quashed the proceedings, replying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2012 AIR SCW 5333, wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are of wide plenitude (sic) with no statutory limitation and the guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or (2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the court observed: "Since the offences involved in this case are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society, we had enquired with learned counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any possibility of a settlement. While doing so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the court observed: "Since the offences involved in this case are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society, we had enquired with learned counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties have seen reason and have entered into a compromise." This Court, thus, treated such offences including one under section 307, IPC were of a personal nature and not offences against the society." 9. In view of the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties, it would be a futile exercise to continue the criminal proceedings because ultimately now there are bleak chances of conviction in the matter. 10. As a result of aforesaid discussion, FIR No. 91/2006 registered on 18.09.2006 at Police Station Ropangarh, District Ajmer for offences punishable u/S 147, 365, 342, 323 & 427 IPC and all consequential proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and so also to relieve the trial Courts from excessive workload by putting an end to the proceedings of cases where it is felt that because of compromise between the parties now there are bleak chances of conviction. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed. FIR No. 91/2006 registered on 18.09.2006 at Police Station Ropangarh, District Ajmer for offences punishable u/S 147, 365, 342, 323 & 427 IPC and all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside. 12. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.