the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 11. As is evident from the record that, during the course of hearing of FAO No.136 of 2012 and with the intervention of elders, friends and respected persons, the parties have compromised the matter and settled their all disputes, vide compromise deed (Annexure P2). The settlement is stated to be in the benefit, welfare and in the larger interest of the parties. The complainant does not want to prosecute the criminal case against the petitioners. She has no objection if the criminal case registered against them, by means of impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The parties have redressed their grievances and want to live peacefully in future. The factum and genuineness of the compromise is also reiterated by them in their separately recorded statements. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the benchmark set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) , “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Sequelly, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
