Sandeep Mehta, J.The present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 78/2014, registered at the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420,467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.

2. The First Information Report in this case was filed by the respondent No.l against the petitioner. During pendency of the proceedings of the F.I.R, the dispute has been amicably settled by the parties and accordingly a compromise has been executed between them.

3. On the previous date of hearing, the parties were directed to appear before the I.O. and the Investigating Officer was directed to verify the factum of compromise. Today, the parties as well as the I.O. are present in-person before this Court. The I.O. has submitted a factual report and submits that the compromise arrived at between the parties has been verified by him.

4. Heard Shri Mohammed Faruk, petitioner No. 1 present in-person, the complainant, the learned A.P.P. and Shri Khama Ram, I.O. A.S.I. Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur Metropolitan.

5. In the opinion of this Court, once the dispute has been settled and the parties to the litigation have arrived at a compromise in a dispute of private nature and having predominantly civil overtones, then, continuance of the criminal proceedings is likely to unsettle the compromise.

6. The Honble Apex Court considered the scope of inherent powers of the High Court for quashing the proceedings of cases involving non-compoundable offences while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in JT (2012) 9 SC 426 observed as below:

57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus.-The power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and 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 victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 continues 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

7. Upon a perusal of the F.I.R. filed by the complainant, it is apparent that the dispute between the parties is purely of private nature in relation to the alleged act of cheating and has now been settled amicably between the parties by way of a mutual compromise.

8. Thus, having considered the facts and circumstance of the case and keeping in view the fact that the parties to the litigation have decided to settle all their disputes by way of a mutual compromise, then, this Court is of the opinion that the possibility of accused-petitioners being convicted in the case is absolutely remote. Accordingly, when once the disputes between the parties have been settled by a mutual compromise then no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners.

9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The proceedings of the F.I.R. No. 78/2014, registered at the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. are hereby quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

10. Stay Petition is also disposed of.