JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR No. 304/2021 of Police Station Abu Road Sadar, District Sirohi.

2. This Court vide order dated 18.01.2022 has directed the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 to appear before the Investigating officer and the Investigating officer was directed to inform this Court about the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. Today, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report, wherein it is mentioned that the parties have appeared before the Investigating officer and informed him about the factum of compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have also submitted that the dispute between them was of trivial nature and both the parties have settled the same amicably, therefore, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

5. It is noticed that the petitioner is Up-sarpanch and the respondent No. 2 is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and on account of some difference of opinion between them, this FIR has been lodged but now the parties have settled their dispute amicably as both of them are public representatives in the same institution.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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 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 continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding