JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court') in CRC No. 634/2019.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the petitioner and the private respondents have already settled their dispute amicably. It is submitted that during pendency of the trial, the petitioner has filed an application before the trial court with a prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the private respondents on the basis of compromise arrived at between them, whereby the trial court vide order dated 29.3.2019 has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC, but refused to attest the same for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, as the same is non-compoundable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the petitioner and the private respondents have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the private respondents have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 I.P.C., there is no possibility of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has submitted that the petitioner does not want to press the charges levelled against the private respondents as the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably.

4. Learned counsel for the private respondents has admitted the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. 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 p