JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against them before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pilibanga, Distt. Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Case No. 535/2009, whereby the trial court vide order dated 4.1.2022 has attested the compromise for the offence under Section 420 IPC, but refused to attest the same for the offence punishable under Section 467, 471 and 120-B IPC as the same are non-compoundable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint before the trial court against the petitioners and others regarding some land dispute. On receiving the complaint, the police commenced investigation in the matter and after completing the investigation has filled charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Section 420, 467, 471 and 120-IPC in the trial court.

3. During pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 stating therein that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners may be terminated.

4. The trial court vide order dated 4.1.2022 has allowed the parties to compound the offence under Section 420 IPC, however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offence under Section 467, 471 and 120-B IPC. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the said criminal proceedings pending against them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners have already been acquitted for the offence under Section 420 IPC, there is no possibility of their conviction for the offence under Section 467, 471 and 120-B IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 467, 471 and 120-B IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No. 2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to offence under Section 467, 471 and 120-B IPC.

7. 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 compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Pr