The court can quash criminal proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. if there is no chance of conviction, no societal interest is involved, and the parties have compromised, as established in the judgments of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha (2), learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 21.02.2015 in connection with Giridih (M). P.S. Case No. 143/2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 1110/2011 arising out of C.P. Case No. 666/2011 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Giridih.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there are case and counter case between the parties. He submits that both parties have compromised which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit.

4. Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the submission of learned counsel for the parties and submits that matter has been compromised between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 and it has been decided that cases filed by both the parties shall be withdrawn. He submits that as the dispute has been settled amicably entire proceeding can be quashed.

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. There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatche.”

7. In the case of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement, arrived at be