The Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings in cases where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused, as emphasized in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. and Gian Singh.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mrs. Neeta Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 05.05.2018 and order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 99 of 2018 and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 16.02.2018 whereby petition filed under section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and also for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 27 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 270 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur.

3. Mrs. Neeta Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of partnership firm and for non payment of certain amount, O.P. No. 2 has filed the complaint She further submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties 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. 2154 of 2022 seeking permission to compromise the case.

4. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that compromise has reached between the parties. She submits that amount in question has been received by the O.P. No. 2 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