The central legal point established in the judgment is the Court's authority to quash criminal proceedings, including F.I.R., in cases of compromise between the parties, based on the nature and gravity of the crime, societal interest, and the possibility of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Heard, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including F.I.R. in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 81 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 195 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti.

3. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 are husband and wife. He 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. 2962 of 2022 seeking permission to compromise the case. He further submits that O.P. No. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs from the petitioner in terms of compromise.

4. Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that compromise has reached between the parties for which a joint compromise petition has been brought on record by way of I.A. No. 2962 of 2022. He submits that O.P. No. 2 has received Rs. 40 lakhs from the petitioner in terms of compromise.

5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that this is a case of matrimonial dispute and 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