ORDER :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Amitabh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, the learned State counsel and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned counsel for 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. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the First Information Report lodged in Sadar (Palamau) Sahar PS Case No.219/2016 dated 01.09.2016 registered under section 120(B), 406, 420 and 34 of the IPC pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, Daltonganj. The First Information Report was lodged by the Opposite Party no.2-informant stating that a total sum of Rs.3,28,000/- was taken by the petitioner for obtaining a dealership of organic manure. However, the dispute arose and the FIR was lodged.

4. Mr. Amitabh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the amount in question has been paid over to the O.P.No.2 by way of bank draft which is brought on record by way of Annexure-1 to the I.A. No.2507 of 2020.

5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party no.2 submits that the demand draft for Rs.3,28,000/- has been received by the Opposite party no.2 which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the said I.A. He submits that since this matter is arising out of a private dispute and there is no societal interest involved and the parties have compromised in the matter in that view of the matter the FIR may be quashed. He submits that both the parties have sworn the affidavit separately in I.A. No.2507 of 2020 for quashing the FIR.

6. Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, the learned State counsel submits that the sections are compoundable with permission of the Court and since both the parties have compromised the matter the FIR may be quashed.

7. In view of the above fact and on perusal of the FIR it transpires that the amount in question has been paid to the Opposite Party No.2 and the receiving statement to that effect has given in paragraph no.4 of the said I.A. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shiji v. Radhika” reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705. Paragraph nos. 7, 10, 18 and 19 of the said judgment are quoted herein below :

"7. This Court has, in several decisions, declared that the offences under Section 320 CrPC which are not compoundable with or without the permission of the court cannot be allowed to be compounded. In Ram Lal v. State of J&K, this Court referred to Section 320(9) CrPC 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 v. State of A.P. and Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, to be per incuriam inasmuch as the same permitted composition of offences not otherwise compoundable under Section 320 CrPC.”

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 CrPC. In State of Karnataka v. 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. 702-03, para 7)

“7. … Section 482 of the new Code, which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that :

‘561-A. Saving of inherent power of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.’

In the exercise of this