Point of Law: If settlement is arrived at immediately after alleged commission of offence when matter is still under investigation, High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings/ investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl. P.P. for the opposite party-State and Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No.257/2015 dated 06.11.2015, corresponding to G.R. No.4401/2015 for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh.

3. The case was instituted alleging therein that the petitioner took a loan of Rs.4,45,000/- from the informant which he had saved for marriage of his younger sister. It was also alleged that when the informant asked for return of his amount, the petitioner was delaying payment and threatened the informant to falsely implicate him in criminal case. It was also alleged that when the informant pressurized through friends and relatives, the petitioner gave five cheques of different banks of different amounts. When the aforesaid cheques were deposited, all the said cheques got dishonoured whereupon the petitioner gave his Car as security. When the informant asked for his money, the petitioner assaulted him whereupon the informant filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh and, thereafter, on the basis of the said allegations, a case being Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 257/2015 has been registered against the petitioner.

4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as opposite party no.2 have compromised the matter. He further submits that this case is arising out of dispute between two individuals and that has been settled between the parties. He also submits that a joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 5235 of 2021 has been filed. He further submits that it has been stated in the said I.A. that now the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and opposite party no.2.

5. Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is present and submits that now the matter has been compromised and this matter can be disposed of.

6. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl.P.P. for the State is also present and he submits that no societal interest is involved in this case.

7. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be exercised. In Paragraphs-29 and 30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“29. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/ investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative,