JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 46/2021 dated 24.02.2021 of Police Station Asind, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC.

2. In the instant case the complainant-respondent No. 2 has filed the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that on the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2, proceedings under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC are pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have compromised the matter and resolved the dispute between them amicably.

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

5. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 has conceded that the dispute between the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioners has already been settled and the complainant-respondent No. 2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences.

6. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 07.04.2021, the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the Investigating officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and the factual report dated 08.11.2021 of this effect has been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

8. It is admitted that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the same has been verified by the Investigating officer.

9. Today also learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 has categorically submitted that the complainant-respondent No. 2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties.

10. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.09.2021 rendered in Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489/2012) along with Krishnappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1488/2012), after taking into consideration its earlier decisions rendered in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and several other judgments has held as under:-

"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 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."

11. In my opinion, the nature of the offences as alleged in the impugned FIR is private in nature. There is no reason to doubt that the complainant-respondent No. 2 has not entered into compromise voluntarily and there is nothing adverse in respect of the conduct of the petitioners prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offences.

12. Having considered the fac