1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.157/2014 dated 17.06.2014 of Police Station, Mandal, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has filed the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 are close relatives and have compromised the matter and resolved the dispute between them amicably.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the impugned FIR against the petitioners may kindly be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 are close relatives and the dispute between them has already been settled amicably and the respondent No.2 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed lodged against the petitioners.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 27.06.2014, the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have appeared before the Investigating Officer and submitted their compromise deed before him and the same have been verified by the Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and the police has also proposed to file negative final report in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The factual report dated 09.07.2015 of this effect has submitted by learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.7-8. It is admitted that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 are close relatives and dispute between them has already been settled amicably and the same have been verified by the Investigating Officer and on the basis of compromise the police has proposed to file negative final report. Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426 , has held as below:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR 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 victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compro