The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice, particularly in cases where a compromise has been reached between the parties and continuing the proceeding would serve no fruitful purpose.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1-State as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioners have preferred this petitioner for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 14.10.2019 as well as entire criminal proceeding in connection with Seraikela P.S. Case No. 86 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 618 of 2019.

4. The facts of this case in narrow compass is that a complaint was instituted on the basis of statement of opposite party no. 2 in this petition. One Raghavendra Singh and Rajeev Panday having company named “Organic India Agrotech.” The is allegation is that a total amount of Rs. 15,07,000/- have been misappropriated by the petitioners and to that effect an F.I.R. was lodged and cognizance was taken.

5. I.A. No. 1149 of 2021 has been filed which is affidavited by the petitioners as well as opposite party no. 2 wherein it has been disclosed that both the parties have entered into compromise and the petitioners have paid the due amount through bank draft as well as NEFT which has been duly received by the opposite party. The receiving draft is annexed as Annexure 1 to the said I.A.

6. Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that in the light of this compromise, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed as it is arising out of money transaction and the matter has been settled between the parties. They submit that the section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending and by the person who has been cheated. They submit that the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot interfere in the light of the compromise as no fruitful purpose will be served as there is no chance of conviction in the trial Court in view of the said compromise.

7. In view of above facts and on perusal of the said I.A. it transpires that the amount in question has been paid to the opposite party no. 2. The receiving is annexed with the said I.A. The settlement to that effect has been given in Para 4 of the said I.A. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Shiji vs. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705. Para 7, 10, 18 and 19 the judgment is quoted herein-below:

“7. This Court has, in several decisions, declared that the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. which are not compoundable with or without the permission of the court cannot be allowed to be compounded. In Ram Lal vs. State of J&K this Court referred to Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. to declare that such offences as are made compoundable under Section 320 can alone be compounded and none else. This Court declared two earlier decisions rendered in Y. Suresh Babu vs. State of A.P. and Mahesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, to be per incuriam inasmuch as the same permitted composition of offences not otherwise compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

10. There is another line of decisions in which this Court has taken note of the compromise arrived at between the parties and quashed the prosecution in exercise of powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy this Court held that the High Court was entitled to quash the proceedings if it came to the conclusion that the ends of justice so required. This Court observed: (SCC pp. 702-703, Para 7)

“7.....Section 482 of