The power of the Court to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise between the parties and the absence of societal interest, as established in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. and Gian Singh.

JUDGMENT :

1. I.A. No. 4330 of 2022 has been filed for ignoring the defect no. 9(v).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in para 3 of the said interlocutory application it has been disclosed that part of Annexure-2 is a web copy of the order dated 30.06.2017 passed in A.B.P. No. 1155 of 2017 and it was downloaded from the e-Court website.

3. In view of statement made in para 3 of the interlocutory application, prayer is allowed.

4. Defect no. 9(v) is ignored.

5. I.A. No. 4330 of 2022 stands disposed of.

6. Heard Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2

7. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 2049 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi .

8. Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that allegation for abduction of informant, F.I.R. has been lodged. He further submits that supervision note is in favour of the petitioners and in that view of the matter anticipatory bail was allowed in favour of the petitioners. He submits that both parties have compromised the case 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. 6232 of 2021 seeking permission to compromise the case.

9. Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that matter has been compromised between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2. He submits that both parties were in friendly relationship but due to some differences and misunderstanding this case has been filed. He submits that O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further with this case.

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

11. 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, t