JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against them before the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 7, Jodhpur Metro (for short ‘the trial court’) arising out of FIR No. 0450/2019 of Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur City West, whereby the trial court vide order dated 30.11.2021 has refused to attest the compromise for the offences under Sections 380, 34, 451 IPC as the same are non-compoundable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has submitted a report to the Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur to the effect that on 18.10.2019, when he was sitting at his jewellery shop, the petitioners came there and asked him to show some gold ornaments, on which, he showed them some gold ornaments, which they snatched and fled away.

3. On the said complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, an FIR No. 0450/2019 at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur City West was registered against the petitioners.

4. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioners before the trial court for the above-referred offences, wherein the trial is pending against them.

5. During pendency of the trial, a joint application was moved on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 stating therein that since both the parties have entered into compromise, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners may be quashed.

6. The trial court vide order dated 30.11.2021 has refused to attest the compromise for the offence under Sections 380, 34, 451 IPC.

7. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the said criminal proceedings pending against them.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 380, 34, 451 IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 380, 34, 451 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

9. 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 the offences under Sections 380, 34, 451 IPC.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 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