The court's decision was influenced by the principle that the power to quash a criminal proceeding based on a compromise between the parties should consider the nature of the crime, societal impact, and the fairness of continuing the proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including First Information Report in connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No. 154 of 2020 registered for the offence under sections 406, 407, 420, 418, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur.

3. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that transaction has taken place pursuant to agreement dated 31.10.2019. 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. 4390 of 2022 seeking permission to compromise the case.

4. In para 2 of the interlocutory application it has been stated that the petitioner has made part payment of Rs.50,000/- to O.P. No. 2 and for the rest amount an agreement for settlement dated 13.05.2022 has been entered into between the parties by which it has been undertaken that Rs.2,00,000/- would be paid to the O.P. No.2 as per Clause 3 contained in the said agreement. The said agreement has been annexed as Annexure 1 series to the interlocutory application.

5. Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that matter has been compromised between the parties. She submits that as per agreement part payment of Rs.50,000/- has been made to O.P. No. 2 and for the rest amount an agreement for settlement dated 13.05.2022 has been entered into between the parties by which it has been undertaken that Rs.2,00,000/- would be paid to the O.P. No.2. He submits that the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further with this case. He submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

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

7. 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