JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Ankit Vishal, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

2. This 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 present petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the First Information Report of Palamau SC/ST P.S.Case No.09 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under sections 341,323,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(d) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Palamau at Daltonganj.

4. On the written report of the informant – Govind Kachhap, the case was registered alleging therein that the petitioner has abused him by naming his caste and also assaulted by fists and slaps and also thrown chairs of the office and that for the aforesaid sections the F.I.R was lodged.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing alongwith his junior Mr. Ankit Vishal, the learned vice counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that now the matter has been compromised between the O.P.No.2 and the petitioner and for that one I.A. being I.A. No.1653 of 2021 has been filed.

6. Mr. Kumar Vaishav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there is a compromise and there is no societal interest is involved in the case and in that view of the matter it can be quashed. He submits that the said I.A is also supported by affidavit of the O.P.No.2 namely, Govind Kachhap.

7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of “Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab”, reported in 2013 1 SCC Cr.160, the case stands covered and the FIR can be quashed. He further relied in the case of “Shiji v. Radhika” reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705 and submits that it is well settled principle that in the cases where there is no chance of conviction against the accused and if the entire exercise of trial is continued to be exercised in futility, the Court can interfere. He relied in paragraph no.17 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below:

“17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC.”

8. He further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case of public view in the case so far as SC/ST Act is concerned in the case of “Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttrakhand”, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. Paragraph nos.14 and 15 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

“14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place with