JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 59/2021, whereby the trial court vide order dated 6.1.2022 has attested the compromise for the offence under Section 504 IPC, but refused to attest the same for the offence under Section 498-A IPC as the same is non-compoundable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, the Police Station Mahila Thana, Distt. Hanumangarh has registered an FIR No. 215/2020 against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A and 504 IPC in the trial court, wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner.

3. During pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 stating therein that both the parties have entered into compromise and the dispute between them has been settled amicably.

4. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings pending against him before the trial court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC, there is no possibility of his conviction for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. 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 petitioner in relation to the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.

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 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising fr