JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Amrendra Nath Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. The petitioner is one of the accused in connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No.202 of 2013 wherein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, Wast Champaran differed with the police report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the petitioner also for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 379 and 302/34 I.P.C. It is worth to mention that the petitioner was not sent up for trial after investigation of the case, however, considering the material in the case diary, the learned Magistrate has differed with the police report.

3. According to FIR, for land disputes, the FIR named accused person including the petitioner variously armed came to the house of the informant and committed assault. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that he caused injury with Farsa at the head of Amin Gaddi, as a result whereof, Amin Gaddi died during course of treatment. The eyewitnesses of the occurrence including the wife of the deceased had supported the allegation that the petitioner had caused injury at the head of the deceased in their presence. Therefore, there was apparent material before the Magistrate to differ with the police report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is case and counter case and for land dispute, both sides sustained injury in the occurrence of assault. Subsequently, both the parties have entered into a compromise and as a result of compromise, when some of the juvenile accused were facing enquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board, the wife of the deceased and other witnesses stated that due to darkness, they could not see as to who had assaulted to whom. Submission is that when there is bleak chance of conviction, the criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and the Court should not hesitate to exercise power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Reliance has been placed on the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466.

5. In Narinder Singh Case (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court summed up following principles for guidance to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.;

“(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Co