The court can quash criminal proceedings in cases of settlement, absence of societal interest, and offenses with a predominantly civil nature, as established in the judgments of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, 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. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of cognizance order dated 03.02.2015 including entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 271 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur.

4. By referring to F.I.R, Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that entire allegation is with regard to business transaction. He submits that partnership firm was being operated by the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 wherein certain dispute has taken place with regard to business transaction for which F.I.R. has been lodged. He further submits that there is no societal interest involved in the matter. He submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties for that a compromise petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner as well as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 2070 of 2022 seeking permission to compromise the case.

5. Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that compromise has entered between the parties. The O.P. No. 2 has received amount as full and final settlement through cheque. He submits that O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further in this case.

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 tri