The power of the Court to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise is exercised when there is no societal interest involved, and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, as established in the judgments of Narinder Singh & Ors. and Gian Singh.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Someshwar Rai, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Mukesh Kr. Banka, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of cognizance order dated 29.06.2018 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 143 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa.

3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that complaint was filed on the allegation that the complainant was in possession of the land in question since 60-70 years but the landlords put pressure upon the complainant to vacate the said land. He submits that the case is civil in nature. He submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties for that a compromise petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners as well as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 1310 of 2020 seeking permission to compromise the case.

4. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Banka, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that what has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is correct. He submits that compromise has reached between the parties. The O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with this case. He submits that O.P. No. 2 has filed petition in the court below for withdrawal of the complaint case which is annexed as Annexure-10 to the main petition. He submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits 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 Sectio