The central legal point established in the judgment is the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, considering the absence of societal interest and the compromise reached between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 24.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby bail of the petitioner was cancelled and also quashing of order dated 07.03.2017 and 24.03.2018 whereby processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been directed to be issued against the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telco (Birsanagar) P.S. Case No. 282 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2464 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Judical Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

3. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and both parties have compromised the case for that a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner as well as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 5281 of 2020 seeking permission to compromise the case. He submits that as per terms and condition compromise has taken place. He submits that petitioner has already complied the terms and conditions.

4. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that compromise has reached between the parties and O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further with this case.

5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that as the matter has been compromised, the Court may pass appropriate order.

6. 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-27 and 28, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“27. 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, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.

28. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. Th